Main navigation

Frequently Asked Questions

Although the specific requirements for intellectual property rights assignments depend on the particular situation and vary from country to country, in most jurisdictions a valid IP assignment must at a minimum include the following:

Identification of the Parties - identifies the contract as an intellectual property assignment agreement and identifies the Assignor and Assignee. The party transferring ("assigning") ownership interest is termed the Assignor while the party receiving it is known as the Assignee.

Recitals - defines the context of the assignment and provides relevant background information about the parties, including a statement of intent to transfer rights in intellectual property.

Definitions - clarifies relevant general and technical terms used throughout the contract in order to guarantee that these terms will have the same meaning to the parties of the agreement.

Assignment of intellectual property - contains a complete and concise description of the property being transferred; details exactly the intellectual property, including any relevant applications or registrations for intellectual property protection and “goodwill” (business reputation) sold with the property; “goodwill” is the intangible value of an asset, reflecting the commercial value of said asset (e.g. trade mark reputation and distinctiveness among customers). In the case of complex assignment agreements, this clause may also refer to a description of the proposed transferred assets that will be annexed to the agreement.

Obligations of the Parties - it is important to clearly define the obligations of the parties in order to avoid any subsequent conflict with regards to the extent of these obligations; the exact definition and extent of the parties’ obligations depend on the type of intellectual property transferred; however the main obligation of the Assignor is to transfer the ownership of the intellectual property assets and the main obligation of the Assignee is to pay the a lump sum (royalties) agreed; other obligations are those related to the Assignor’s rights to the intellectual property transferred - the guarantee that he owns the IP.

Liability and warranties provisions - relates to the assignor’s right and authority to enter into such an agreement; for example the guarantee that he is the exclusive owner of all rights, title and interest in the IP and that the IP is valid and subsisting; that the IP transferred does not infringe the rights of third parties.

Indemnification - a description of each party’s future obligations, if the intellectual property is found to infringe on a third party’s rights.

Payment provisions - price and other commercial terms.

Term of the agreement - identifies the effective date of the assignment.

Applicable law and jurisdiction - which national law will apply in the event that a conflict arises; identification of a competent court or an arbitration/mediation body to which a dispute could be referred is also important.

The assignment of intellectual property rights can be made as a separate transaction of intangible assets, or it may occur as part of much larger acquisitions of assets such as sales of business assets, mergers or stock purchases. However, ownership of intangible assets is not affected by the mere acquisition of shares in a company.

To be valid and effective, an assignment of intellectual property rights should comply with specified requirements. These requirements will vary depending on the jurisdiction, national laws and regulations and will relate to the form of the assignment agreement (written agreement or not), the identification of the parties, the subject of the contract and sometimes with the obligation to declare and record the assignment within a specific register.

The intellectual property assignment is a transfer of an owner's rights, title and interest in certain intellectual property rights. The transferring party ("assignor") transfers to the receiving party ("assignee") its property in intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks, industrial designs and copyrights.

The owner of the intellectual property rights may transfer all or part of his rights - e.g. the copyright owner could assign only some of his economic prerogatives. The transfer of intellectual property rights is made upon a payment of a lump sum or royalties.

Unlike licence agreements, which grant permission to use intellectual property under certain conditions, as a general rule assignments are transfers of property rights, with no conditions under which the rights will be used.

For Trademarks: An assignment is a transfer of ownership of a trademark application or trademark registration from one entity to another.

For Patents: An assignment involves the sale and transfer of ownership of a patent by the assignor to the assignee.

For Copyright: An assignment is a transfer of the copyright owner’s economic rights. In contrast to the economic rights under copyright, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned to another person (moral rights are the right to be identified as the author of the work or to object to derogatory treatment or to a distortion or mutilation of the work, to protect the personality and reputation of authors).

Copyright protection is automatic in the EU, as well as in every country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention. Copyright, therefore, arises from the moment of the work’s creation and no registration or other formality is required.

Even though copyright owners do not have to register copyright, and registration is not a requirement for protection, some national laws allow it. Using these non-mandatory registration systems may prove to be useful in some situations, particularly where proof of possession and creation on a certain date is necessary to legal proceedings. It may also prevent misappropriations of information in negotiations with potential partners, since it shows that said material had already been created.

Copyright is an intellectual property right, that entitles the owners of literary and artistic works to a set of exclusive rights over their works. These rights, generally, include:

- copying;

- translating;

- adapting and altering;

- communicating and performing to the public;

- distributing;

- renting and lending copies.

Copyright grants two kinds of prerogatives:

- economic rights;

- moral rights;

So-called "economic rights" enable right holders to control (license) the use of their works, and be remunerated for their use. These rights normally take the form of exclusive rights and include the right to reproduce and publish the work.

The author of a copyrighted work also has the right to claim authorship, as well as the right to object to a distortion and mutilation of the work that may be detrimental to his honour or reputation. These rights are generally known as moral rights. Moral rights may also include the right to decide on when or whether to make the work public, the right to claim authorship of the work and the right to object to any derogatory action in relation to the work. Moral rights are not harmonised at EU level.

Related rights are the rights that have a specific subject matter and protect the interests of certain group of right holders, such as:

- performers;

- producers (of phonograms, films);

- broadcasting organisations;

- publishers in their editions.

These are rights granted to performers, producers and broadcasters to ensure that those who have created or invested in the creation of music, or other content such as literature or films, can determine how such a creation can be used and receive remuneration for it.

After the period of copyright protection has expired, a work becomes available for use without permission from the copyright owner; it is said to be "in the public domain." Most works enter the public domain because their copyrights have expired.

Generally in the EU, copyright is owned by the natural person who creates the work. In most EU countries, the author or co-authors of a work are the first owners or co-owners of the copyright.

However, the IP systems in the EU currently vary between Member States that maintain a system of institutional ownership, and those which maintain a system of professor’s privilege (inventor ownership).

In many countries, when a work is made by an employee in the course of his/her employment, the owner of the work will be stipulated in the employee's contract, usually that the employer owns the any work created in the due course of employment.(e.g. the university would be regarded as the owner of a copyright to a work created by its researcher in the course of their employment, since the latter is paid to perform such a task).

Some countries of the EU have a specific type of "professor’s privilege" regime according to which the researchers, PhD students, etc. are entitled by law to the ownership of the work they created in the course of their employment (e.g. in Italy or Sweden). Results of publicly-funded research created or developed by researchers are thus owned by the latter and not by the academic institution where the research is carried out.

Copyright is essentially a private right. The copyright owner must decide how best to exploit the copyright work – to sell it, license it (exclusively or non-exclusively); an assignment transfers the full (all economic rights) or partial (some economic rights) ownership.

These options often involve contractual agreements, which may be just as important as the rights provided by copyright law.

Registered copyright does not refer to a different type of intellectual property right, but to copyright that has been registered under the voluntary system of registration. Copyright is indeed an automatic right that does not depend on registration. Nevertheless, in some countries (e.g. Belgium), national laws allow registration of artistic/literary works. This voluntary system of registration is generally aimed at identifying the work and serving as evidence in court in litigation disputes (e.g. in order to prove more easily the date of creation of the work); it does not prove authorship.

There are a number of exceptions in copyright law, which allow limited uses of copyright works without the permission of the copyright owner. Normally permission is not needed if using less than a substantial part of a copyright protected work.

The following list of exceptions is not exhaustive and particular care should be taken if intending to rely on an exception:

- non-commercial research and private study;

- criticism, review and reporting current events;

- teaching in educational establishments;

- helping visually impaired people;

- time shifting;

- material used in legal proceedings.

Certain exceptions require giving sufficient acknowledgment when making use of a copyright protected work.

Copyright is infringed when a person deals with a ‘substantial part’ of a copyright-protected work without the copyright owner’s authorisation where such dealing is not covered by an exception. It is important to take into consideration that dealing with a ‘substantial part’ of a copyright-protected work does not necessarily refer to using a large amount of the work. A person who wants to exploit another person's works must obtain authorisation from the owner of the copyright-protected work; otherwise the person's act will constitute infringement of the copyright on the works.

The Berne Convention establishes that literary works are protected under copyright, without any formal registration of rights, in the countries that agree to this Convention. This means that as soon as a literary work is created, it is considered to be protected by copyright. All European Union Member States are parties to the Berne Convention.

To obtain copyright protection on a book, authors in the EU do not need to register their publication, as protection arises automatically; but they are required to satisfy the copyright requirements that are imposed in their country. For example, one such requirement is the original character of the work.

Copyright combines rights of the author and rights to the exploitation of works. Concerning the publication of a book, authors are usually required to assign the copyright or grant a licence to publishers in order to allow them to make copies and to distribute the work. These arrangements commonly include an agreement on the payment of royalties to the author.

At the European level, Directive 2009/24 seeks to harmonise Member States’ legislation in the field of legal protection of computer programs by defining a minimum level of protection. Member States protect computer software as such by copyright, by analogy to the protection given to literary works within the meaning of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works.

Copyright will protect only the computer program in the form written by a programmer i.e. its source code. Neither the functionality of a computer program, nor the programming language or the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program, and thus, those are not protected by copyright.

Article 52 of the European Patent Convention excludes software from patentability to the extent that a patent application relates to a computer program as such. A distinction is, however, made between “software patents” which are excluded according to Article 52 EPC and so called computer-implemented inventions which are accepted at the European Patent Office. In this respect, “computer-implemented inventions” can be defined as inventions whose implementation involves the use of a computer, a computer network or other programmable apparatus, having one or more features realised by means of a computer program. It seems therefore that patentability must not be denied merely because a computer program is involved. You could seek patent protection if the subject matter of your invention as a whole, i.e. a machine with related software, has a technical character - this technical character must be present in all variants covered by the patent claim.

Moral rights are perpetual. As to the economic rights, and according to the Berne Convention, which has been ratified by 176 countries including all EU Member States, the period of protection granted to the copyright owner shall be the life of the author and a certain number of years (typically 50 years) after his/her death.

However, in the case of cinematographic works, the countries of the Berne Convention may provide that the period of protection shall 50 years after the work has been made available to the public with the consent of the author, or, if it is not the case, within 50 years from the creation of such a work.

It is to be noticed that the protection period set by the Berne Convention is a minimum standard. Hence, it is up to the Member States, which are parties of the Convention, to set higher time limits for the protection of the copyright.

In the meaning of the European Union Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases,the term database refers to a collection of independent works, data or other materials, which have been arranged in a systematic or methodical way, and have been made individually accessible by electronic or other means. In the meaning of the Directive the data or materials:

- must not be linked, or must be capable of separation without losing their informative content;

- must be organised according to specific criteria, which means that only planned collections are covered;

- must be individually accessible – mere storage of data is not covered by the term database.

A database can be protected by copyright as a literary work and/or by a sui generis database right:

- under the rules of international law - Berne Convention, the WTO/TRIPs Agreement and under the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), original and creative databases enjoy copyright protection as literary works.

- under Directive 96/9/EC on the legal protection of databases, which creates a specific property right for databases, that is unrelated to other forms of protection such as copyright. This new form of “sui generis” protection applies to those databases, which are not “original” in the sense of an author’s own intellectual creation (“non-original” databases), but which involved a substantial investment in their making.

Both rights only apply to the arrangement of data – neither database copyright nor the sui generis right creates an additional protection for the individual elements of the database.

Copyright protection applies to databases that are creative/original in the selection and/or arrangement of the contents and constitute their authors’ own intellectual creation.

Copyright protection is granted to the author and expires 70 years after the author’s death.

Copyright protection has an international character – databases are protected by copyright in almost all countries in the world. The modalities of such protection may however vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

The sui generis protection of databases applies if a substantial investment was made in obtaining, verifying and presenting its contents. A substantial investment is to be understood as a financial and/or professional investment, which may consist in the deployment of financial resources and the expending of time, effort and energy made in obtaining and collecting the contents.

The collection of data should be contained in a fixed base, which includes technical means – electronic, electromagnetic or electro-optical processes or other means – index, table of contents, plan or method of classification, to allow the retrieval of any independent material contained therein.

Database protection can apply to both electronic and non-electronic (paper) databases as well as both static and dynamic databases.

The term of protection of the sui generis right is 15 years following the database’s completion. However, if the database is published during this time, the 15-year term will start running from the publication date.

If a new substantial investment is made to an existing database (updates or supplements), the creator will have a new right to the altered database or its substantial part.

1. the right to prevent the extraction of either all or a substantial part of the database. The term “extraction” refers to the permanent or temporary transfer of the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database to another medium, by any means or in any form. It implies that some degree of choice or individual appreciation of the content to be extracted is made.

2. the right to prevent the re-utilisation of all or a substantial part of the database. The term “re-utilisation” refers to any form of making available to the public the whole or a substantial part of the contents of the database by distributing or renting copies, through on-line or other forms of transmission.

The expression “substantial part” of the contents refers to a part that could be substantial in quantitative or qualitative terms – therefore a part may be considered substantial even if it is quantitatively small.

The sui generis right protects, as an intangible asset, the results of the financial and/or professional investment carried out towards the methodical and systematic classification of independent data. This right is not a right over the information stored in the database and does not constitute an extension of the copyright protection which may apply to the contents of the database.

The holder of the sui generis database right is the person who undertakes the initiative of creating the database – the producer of the database – and takes the risk of investing. The investment’s substantial quality has to be proven by the producer, for example by providing invoices or information on the persons/employees involved in the work.

The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the UDRP Policy) adopted by the ICANN Board on October 24, 1999 sets out the legal framework for the resolution of disputes between a domain name registrant and a third party over the abusive registration and use of an Internet domain name in the generic top level domains or gTLDs (e.g., .biz, .com, .info, .mobi, .name, .net, .org), and those country code top level domains or ccTLDs that have adopted the UDRP Policy on a voluntary basis. The procedure is administered by dispute resolution service providers accredited by ICANN (e.g. WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center)

Any person or entity wishing to register a domain name in the gTLDs and ccTLDs in question is required to consent to the terms and conditions of the UDRP Policy.

ICANN is a global non-profit, private sector organization that manages Internet resources for the public benefit. It is best known for its role as technical coordinator of the Internet’s Domain Name System.

Its role is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet’s systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique identifier systems. In particular, ICANN:

1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are:

a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as DNS)

b. Internet protocol addresses and autonomous system numbers

c. Protocol port and parameter numbers

2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system

3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to these technical functions.

Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, is a form of cybersquatting that targets Internet users who incorrectly type a website address into their web browser. Should a user accidentally enter an incorrect website address, they may be led to alternative website, usually designed for malicious purposes such as stealing identities, installing drive-by malware, redirect web traffic to their own or a competitor’s product, or making revenue from the user clicking on advertisements.

Cybersquatting is the practice of registering as Internet domains identical or similar to a third party company name or trade mark, with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a third party brand, or in the hope of reselling them at a profit.

Cybersquatters exploit the first-come, first-served nature of the domain name registration system to register as domain names, third parties’ trademarks or business names or names of famous people, as well as variations thereof.

A common motive for cybersquatting is the intention to sell the domain name back to the trademark owner, to profit from the goodwill of a third party brand, or to attract web traffic to unrelated commercial offers.

Domain name is a human-friendly form of an Internet address. It is used to identify the complicated string of numbers composing an IP Address which is hard to remember by heart. In other words, a domain name is linked to the relevant IP address and is used to find web pages in a user-friendly way. Domain names are registered with accredited Registrars and consist of two parts: a top-level domain (TLD – .com, .net, .org, .eu) and a second level domain, which represents the entity that owns the domain name.

No. To qualify for trade mark protection a domain name itself should function as a trade mark. Concretely this signifies that a domain name must not be used simply as an address to direct to a website, but to identify the products and/or services of the business, which provides products and/or services via the Internet. For example this will be the case of a domain name used in connection with a website that offers web-related services.

The registration of a domain name with an accredited registrar does not automatically signify that the same or similar sign will satisfy the requirements for trade mark registration. You can register as a domain name common or descriptive terms, that usually do not qualify for trade mark protection. Furthermore trade mark protection of a sign is needed only when such a sign will be used to identify and distinguish the commercial origin of the products and/or services of one company from those of another company.

The system for domain name registration generally operates on a first-come first-served basis and no two domain names can be exactly the same. It is strongly advisable to search the domain name databases and to check that the same or a similar domain name doesn't already exist or exists in another top-level domain.

The easiest way to check if a domain name is available is at one of the companies that have been approved to register domain names. A list of accredited and accreditation-qualified registrars can be found on the ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) web site: www.icann.org

It is also a best practice to do a trademark search before you register your domain name, since domain registrars generally do not check if a requested name violates an existing trademark. Therefore, if you register a domain name that conflicts with someone else’s trademark, you could lose the right to it if the trademark owner takes legal action against you.

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are legal rights aimed at protecting the creations of the intellect, such as inventions, the appearance of products, literary, artistic and scientific works and signs, among others.

Type of creation

Intellectual Property Rights

literary, artistic and scientific works

copyright

performances of performing artists, phonogram recordings by producers, and rights of broadcasters over radio and TV programmes

related rights or neighbouring rights

inventions

patents and utility models

product appearance

design

signs - words, phrases, symbols or designs (or a combination of these) which are used as brands of goods and services

Intellectual property is created by most companies, whatever business they are involved in. For many of these organisations, intellectual property is even their most important asset (e.g. startup or spin out companies)

Safeguarding this possession is therefore vital and can offer SMEs many opportunities, in particular:

to have an exclusive set of rights in the market over their creations (for example, a patented invention allows a monopoly of twenty years, and means that a patent provides its owner with a right to prevent or exclude all others from commercially using it);

to obtain higher returns on their investments, since owning intellectual property rights may not only enhance the bargaining power, but may also be exploited through licences in return for royalty payments;

to enhance the market value and increase future profit expectations of an organisation in the eyes of investors and financing institutions.

It is therefore essential that SMEs consider protecting their creations through intellectual property and efficiently manage these assets to reap the most from their investment.

In Your Europe, a website maintained by the European Commission, you can find an overview of the intellectual property (IP) framework at the EU level and also in all Member States. A list of resources and contacts of organisations that can provide you with further assistance can also be found on this website.

National IP offices are also a valuable source of information. In the website of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), there is a Directory of Intellectual Property Offices where you can find the contact details of all IP offices in the EU.

This matter is not harmonised at the European level, and is therefore regulated by national laws. However, as a general principle in Europe, the rights to intellectual property developed by an employee in the course of his employment duties usually belong to the employer. Sometimes an assignment is mandatory, such as where employee works (inventions) are assigned by an employee to the employer because of the employment contract. On the other hand it is generally acknowledged that the rights to intellectual property (e.g. inventions) developed "on the side", with no relation to the employment relationship and without use of company resources, is the property of the employee.

A design is the outward appearance of a product or part thereof resulting, in particular, from the characteristics of the lines, contours, colours, shape, surface, structure and/or materials of the product itself and/or its ornamentation.

Besides the protection for registered Community design, the Council Regulation (EC) nº 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community Designs provides a short-term form of protection for unregistered industrial designs. Registration is not required. Protection lasts for a period of three years and starts when a new design with an individual character is made available to the public in such a way that the interested circles within the European Union could be aware of its appearance. Unlike a registered design, it is not necessary to file an application to obtain protection. The unregistered design constitutes a right to prevent the commercial use of the design only if the use results from copying.

A well-designed product can be synonymous with the image of your undertaking, and thus becomes a valuable asset for you. If you do not protect your design, others may benefit from your intellectual property.

Nevertheless, depending on the national or regional law system, a design which has not be registered may still be protected in different ways:

The subject of the design protection is the outwardly visible appearance of the product or its part, packaging or the ornamentation itself.

A design is protected by an exclusive right if it is new and has individual character. A design is regarded as new if, on the date on which the application for registration has been filed, no identical design has been made available to the public.

A design is considered to have an individual character if the overall impression it produces on an informed user differs from the overall impression made by any design available to the public before the date of filing of the application for registration.

Further requirements for design protection may vary in different countries.

The design protection gives to its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any third party from using it without the holder's consent. The aforementioned use shall cover, in particular; making, offering, putting on the market, importing, exporting or using a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product for those purposes.

There are different ways to acquire design protection, through application to national, Community design or Hague design offices.

In the EU, you may obtain a community design registration valid in all member countries through a single application, which can be filed directly in the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) in Alicante (Spain) or through any of the EU national Industrial Property Offices. If the design is registered by national offices, the protection is limited to the country in which protection is granted. Some countries (e.g. the UK) provide the protection of unregistered design in their national legislation. Furthermore, all designs in the EU fulfilling specific criteria for protection are automatically protected (without registration) as unregistered Community designs.

The Hague System for the International Registration of Industrial Designs provides a mechanism for registering a design in several countries by means of a single application, filed in one language, with one set of fees. The system is administered by WIPO.

The features of appearance that result solely from the technical function of a product cannot be protected as a design. The components of a complex product are protected only if they are visible during the normal use of a product and if they are new and have individual character. Design features enabling one product to be functionally fitted or aesthetically matched to another are excluded from protection. These so-called 'must-fit' and 'must-match' exceptions are influenced by the need to ensure that third party providers of spare parts should not be unfairly prevented from competing within the spare parts market.

The existence of a grace period and the corresponding requirements can be provided by applicable national laws. The law can allow the filing of an application for registration of an industrial design after its disclosure, within a limited time period from the date of disclosure (generally six months or a year). This is particularly useful for small businesses since they frequently lack the funds to finance registration of designs, which may not be successful on the market.

You should keep in mind that the laws concerning the enforcement of IP are not the same in every country. Hence, since law harmonisation is not the case in IP enforcement, it is safer to try – at least at the first stage – to resolve any IP dispute out of court. However, if all of the attempts to find an out-of-court solution fail, IP owners shall rely on court proceedings. The contribution of an IP lawyer is pivotal at this point.

In this context, two different proceedings can take place; civil actions and criminal prosecution. Bringing a civil action to the court means that you are about to enforce your IP rights by filing a lawsuit for infringement in a national specialised civil court. That is to say, you are applying for a preliminary or permanent injunction or other forms of interim measures (i.e. seizure of bank account) and claiming for a compensation through the award of damages. Other relief measures may also be confiscation as well as the destruction of illegal goods. It is to be noticed that since IP legal proceedings are rather costly, you are advised to anticipate an approximate budget for enforcement litigation and insuring the organisation against the financial costs linked to it.

Criminal prosecution, on the other hand, is also possible under certain circumstances and sanctions such as criminal fines, confiscation, destruction of goods and even imprisonment can be posed by courts. However, these criminal offences can be brought to trial only by public prosecutors and decided upon by criminal courts. Furthermore, it is to be noticed that criminal prosecution is mainly for trademarks and design “counterfeiting” as well as for copyright “piracy” or theft of confidential business information since the legal base of prosecution is usually the infringer’s intention to benefit financially from the commercial advantage of the IP owner.

In case you do not wish to get involved in long-term and costly litigation proceedings, a set of alternative measures is available for you.

First of all, you should approach the person/organisation that is supposedly infringing your IP rights by sending a letter of demand, also known as “cease and desist letter". The letter will advise the alleged infringer that a court action may be taken if the infringing activities do not stop within a certain period of time. It is to be noticed that you should avoid posing threats to the other party, or include false statements as this may lead to your legal liability.

In case the alleged infringement involves shipments of goods from outside of EU (or from EU to third countries) you can bring your claim to the competent customs authority. You can apply a notice with the customs authorities in order to stop shipments of infringing goods directly at the EU border. The intervention application requests the inspection of possible infringing goods imported from or exported to third countries and, where the customs find grounds for infringements, their consequent seizure. This application is valid for one year but can be renewed and no fees are required upon submitting it.

Another viable option is applying one of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms. ADR refers to non-litigious methods to resolve disputes. Depending on the intended result you can choose between informal negotiations and more formal proceedings such as mediation and arbitration. ADR may be advantageous from the point of view of costs and of the likelihood and speed of settlements, as well as appropriate for avoiding that the organisations reputation and, hence, their relations with other organisations and costumers be damaged. Parties may agree in advance to resolve any disputes by ADR before initiating any legal proceeding, by including ADR clauses within commercial agreements. On the other hand, a court decision may order the parties to pursue a specific form of ADR.

In broad terms, negotiation refers to a voluntary and non-binding out-of-court settlement. Even though the assistance of a lawyer is not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the resulting settlement agreement is to be drafted by a lawyer, since there are complex legal aspects which have to be covered within the final document (compensation, damages etc.).

Mediation is also a non-binding procedure in which an external third party assists the participants in reaching their own decision over a dispute. Mediation is a confidential procedure assuring the parties that any admissions, proposals or offers for settlement will not have any consequences beyond the mediation process. They cannot, as a general rule, be used in subsequent litigation or arbitration. Most important, the mediator has no decision authority and any settlement result is normally enforceable as a contract, a breach of which is enforceable in subsequent litigation.

On the other hand, arbitration is a formal procedure in which the parties submit a dispute to a tribunal of one or three arbitrators who issue an enforceable binding decision. What differentiates the arbitration proceedings from the traditional litigation proceedings is that the arbitrator is not bound to follow substantive law, but may also employ concepts of equity and justice, business practices and whatever technical expertise relevant to the case.

In all those cases, it is advisable to seek a proper legal advice, since the course of action will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.

When you become aware about the possible unlawful use of your rights by third parties, should precisely identify the alleged infringers in order to eventually bring to an end to the infringing activity.

There are several ways to enforce your IP rights, ranging from relatively simple measures to complex litigation. Court proceedings are costly and lengthy and therefore other preliminary tools should be used so as to prevent subsequent litigation. In many cases private negotiation via legal professional is more effective and should be considered as a viable option,particularly for SMEs which often are faced with budgetary constraints.

It is a common practice to approach the person who is supposedly infringing your IP rights by sending a letter of demand, also known as “cease and desist letter". The letter will advise the alleged infringer that a court action may be taken if the infringing activities do not stop within a certain period of time. It is to be noticed that you should avoid posing threats to the other party, or include false statements as this may lead to your legal liability. A previous consultation with a lawyer may be advisable in this respect.

In case a letter of demand does not result in cessation of the alleged infringement, further legal steps are available, such as customs actions, settlements (through informal negotiations, mediation or arbitration) and/or litigation (civil actions or criminal prosecution where available).

In any case, it is advisable to seek a proper legal advice, since the course of action will depend on the circumstances of each particular case.

·IP assignments and IP licensing: aiming to provide information to the potential assignee or licensor about the IP portfolio, concentrating on verification of ownership and possible restrictions affecting the use of the IP

·Launching of a new product or service: aiming to evaluate any possible infringement risks or freedom-to-operate issues linked to the new product or service

Broadly speaking, depending on the objectives of the audit, there are two types of IP audits :

General IP audits: General-purpose audits draw an overall but comprehensive picture about the company’s IP assets. Such audits scrutinise the IP portfolio as a whole to review the businesses’ IP management approach, if there is one. If not, general IP audit is a core and fundamental step to develop an IP management approach and an IP-intensive culture within the company.

Specific IP audits: These types of audits are generally known as IP due diligence. They have a narrower scope and usually focus on identification and evaluation of IP assets relevant to the explicit objective of the audit.

An IP audit is a systematic, thorough and solution-focused review of the intellectual assets owned, used or acquired by the businesses to ascertain their legal status, value, potential IP-related risks and the means for protection and to capitalise on them.

A formal IP audit serves two general purposes: (1) identification and evaluation of IP assets (2) anticipating and managing the risks that could be linked to the IP portfolio of the company.

The IP valuation of a company’s assets is a study based on law, economics, finance, accounting, and investment at a particular point in time, which requires expertise on technical matters, intellectual property, marketing, finance and strategy. IP valuation is a process which aims to collect important information in order to determine the actual monetary value of particular intellectual property assets as well as the future economic benefits that they will bring.

An accurate assessment of the value of intellectual property can be very useful in the business environment to facilitate management decisions related to effective development and marketing of products. Therefore, the following aspects can be considered by businesses as incentives to conduct an intellectual property valuation:

valuing intellectual property facilitates investment in industry, making business more attractive and more viable to potential investors and shareholders;

IP valuation facilitates the commercialisation and transactions of intellectual property rights; for example the assessment of the value of the intellectual property can be used before and in the process of negotiating the terms of a transfer, licence and franchising of intellectual property rights;

IP valuation will also be useful when determining investment strategies, in particular establishing a new enterprise, merging of legal entities or setting up joint ventures;

a thorough understanding of the value of the IP assets ensures more informed negotiation and allows the determination of fair royalty rates; and

IP valuation can provide the management with the information needed to ensure optimal conditions for the exploitation of the IP asset, which fits within the business strategy of a company.

IP valuation can also help to choose a strategy to be used in case of intellectual property disputes when deciding whether to introduce a court action or to opt for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation or arbitration.

Assessing the economic value of intellectual property is often used in research and development management and marketing analyses.

Several approaches and methodologies are commonly used to estimate the value of intellectual property assets. However, businesses often have some difficulty in selecting the method that is most appropriate for valuing a specific asset in a particular business situation, since they all have their limitations and no one method is exclusively suitable in all cases.

There are sets of rules and criteria which may be applied before deciding how the economic value of the IP will be calculated. It is very important to consider the following aspects:

the type of IPRs (e.g. trade marks, industrial designs, patents);

the purposes of the valuation;

the relevant information available;

the potential market for them (geographical coverage);

the risks associated with the investment in intangible assets; and

the type of the business activities of the parties and the competitors involved in the transaction where the IP constitutes the relevant element (e.g. transfer or licensing of IP).

The approaches of IP valuation are generally grouped into two main categories with a few subcategories:

The quantitative (monetary) valuation – the intellectual property value is expressed in monetary terms and includes the following methods:

Cost-based method – this method is used to measure the costs in developing the intellectual property, which could be the actual cost incurred in creating the IP or the estimated cost of replacing the IP or creating an equivalent asset;

Market-based method – the value of the IP is determined by comparison with identical or similar IP for which price information is available;

Income-based method – is broadly used to value the amount of economic income that the IP asset is expected to generate adjusted to its present day value;

The qualitative valuation (non-monetary) – the intellectual property value is obtained through “value indicators”, such as the type of the legal protection of the intellectual property, the level of the research and development in a technology, the market of the products and/or services commercialised, etc.

In order to have accurate and usable results, it is important to select the most appropriate method or combination of methods for each individual case. Indeed some of those methods are more suitable for the valuation of certain IP assets. The cost-based method is commonly used in the valuation of software and databases, the market-based approach for the valuation of IP assets such as trade marks, patents, and related research and development activities. In practice, in most cases an effective valuation applies a combination of the methods listed above. Performing proper IP valuation is a complex issue and therefore requires using the services of qualified valuation experts specialised across the wide variety of industries and assets and who have the ability to critically analyse the multitude of valuation contexts.

No universal licencing agreement model exists. Licence agreements will vary depending on the subject of the licencing activity, on the corresponding applicable law used to construe its provisions and on the circumstances of each specific case.

We draw your attention to the following issues:

In general, the scheme of a licence agreement is simple: the licensor (owner of IP rights) allows the licensee to use its IP rights. The licensee may use the licensor's IP rights to the extent established in the licence agreement; however, the formal IP rights remain with the licensor.

While drafting a licence agreement do not forget to cover its core issues, such as: the subject of the licence (all IP rights, future IP rights, know-how), territorial scope of access rights, commercial scope and field of use of licensed rights, exclusivity/non-exclusivity of the licence, duration of effects of the licence, compensation (payments, shares, cross-licenses, etc.), royalties, applicable law (especially important in case of transnational agreements), consequences of the breach of the licence agreement, etc.

Negotiating and drafting of an efficient licence agreement might be quite complex and sometimes requires independent professional advice so that potential legal pitfalls can be avoided.

In order not to miss the most important elements that a licence agreement should include, we suggest that you get acquainted with the guide Healthcheck booklet (in the series: Licensing Intellectual Property) which is available on the UK Intellectual Property Office homepage.

In certain cases, having licence rights to a patent will not be enough for the licensee to use, exploit or manufacture the related invention in an efficient way. Beyond the patented innovation, the licensee will in many cases need access to the unpatented technical information which relates to it.

In such cases, instead of a mere patent licence, it may be worthwhile to conclude a “patent and know-how licence” in order for the licensor to grant access not only to its invention, but also to the technical know-how relevant thereto. This will enable the licensee to fully use and understand the invention.

Of course, licensing know-how will only make sense insofar as this know-how has been kept secret, i.e. that there is an economic value to it and a need for the licensee to gain access to that knowledge, which would otherwise not be known nor be readily accessible.

Licensing secret know-how can involve some risks linked to its potential, unwanted disclosure to third parties. For this reason, a patent and know-how licensing agreement should address questions of confidentiality and non-disclosure in a thorough manner, in order to define as precisely as possible the ways in which the licensee can use and further disclose the licensed know-how. The licensee, its staff and relevant third parties (such as possible subcontractors) should be given confidentiality obligations which are, in their scope and strength, at least as stringent as those put into place by the licensor to protect its trade secret.

Finally, special attention should be given to the duration of the intellectual property right being licensed, since the period of the licence cannot exceed the maximum duration of the right (e.g. 20 years for patents). In the case of a patent and know-how licence, this means that the parties should make a clear difference between the patent licence (which cannot last past the expiration of the patent) and the know-how licence (which the parties may wish to keep in force after the expiration of the patent).

The use of a CCL does not mean that you do not have the copyright on your work anymore. Instead, a CCL helps the creator of a copyrighted work to retain some of his rights stemming from copyright while making available to the public his work and ensures that he gets the credits for his work.

As the creator of a copyrighted work, you have the flexibility to choose which rights will be reserved by choosing among the different types of licences. However, once you use a CCL, you cannot prevent others from copying and distributing your work. Hence, if you wish to reserve all of your rights under copyright law, then you should not use a CCL.

In general terms, a CCL can be used for any copyright protected work (books, movies, etc). However, since the work released under a Creative Commons licence is governed by the applicable national copyright law, national legislation may pose restrictions to the context of the free distribution. Moreover, it is to be noticed that Creative Commons – a creator of CCL – does not recommend the use of Creative Commons licences for software.

Furthermore, Creative Commons licences are non-revocable. This means that once a piece of work has been made available under a CCL, this work, or its copies, may continue to be used only under that licence.

The Creative Commons licence (CCL) is a copyright licence that allows the user, who is not the copyright owner of a work, to distribute freely an otherwise copyrighted work. In this context, a CCL works mutually for both the copyright owner and the end-user, since it gives the author the freedom to allow people to share, use, and build upon a work that he/she has created and protects the users from a possible copyright infringement claim.

It is to be noticed that there are several types of CCLs and the users have to comply with the terms of distribution posed by the copyright owner and indicated by the respective CCL, otherwise they could be held liable for copyright infringement.

Although in both cases the licensor permits the licensee to use his/her intellectual property in return for a negotiated compensation, exclusive and non-exclusive licences refer to the degree of exclusivity that will be granted to the licensee.

In an exclusive licence, the parties agree that no other person/legal entity can exploit the relevant IPRs, except the licensee.

On the other hand, a Non-Exclusive Licence grants to the licensee the right to use the IPRs, but on a non-exclusive basis. That means that the licensor can still exploit the same IPRs and he/she can also allow other licensees to exploit the same intellectual property.

You should note, however, that this classification is not restrictive. There are also other types of licences. For example, in licences known as “co-exclusives” the licensor grants a licence to more than one licensee but agrees that it will only grant licences to a limited group of other licensees. Moreover, licences called as “sole licences” are those in which the licence is exclusive in the meaning that there would be no more licensees, but the licensor also reserves full rights to exploit his/her intellectual property.

A patent is an exclusive right granted by countries or communities for the protection of inventions, whether products or processes, that offer a new technical solution or provide a new way of doing something, during a limited period of time, usually 20 years. In return of this limited monopoly, the owner of a patent must disclose the invention to the public, in the patent application. A patent is a territorial right and has its effects within the national boundaries of the country for which it was granted.

In order to get patent protection, inventors must file a patent application, since registration is a requirement in order to obtain protection.

Patents are territorial rights that require registration - that is, in order to protect your invention in a given country, you must file a patent application in the country concerned or through a regional patent office designating countries in which protection shall be obtained. The European Patent Office offers a very simplified way to apply for several national patents through a unique "European" patent application. You can also file an application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty which allows the owner of an invention to seek for a national patent protection in several countries by filing one “international” patent application.

Hence, if you would like to have a patent in an EU Member State, we suggest that you contact the national patent office of the country or one of the regional patent offices in order to file the patent application there. Irrespective of the filing procedure, the rights to which you are entitled will depend on the national law of the country of registation.

Please note that filing a patent application is highly technical, and choosing the appropriate procedure (at national, European or international level) certainly has implications in terms of cost and time. Therefore, we encourage you to seek legal advice before taking the decision to submit any patent application.

If you want patent protection in more than one EU Member State, it is possible to file patent applications directly in each of the national patent offices of the countries where you seek protection. Another option that you have is to use the European Patent Convention (EPC), which allows you to register patents in more than one European country through a single application. In this way, even though you file only one patent application, you will be granted as many patents (usually called European patents) as the number of countries you have designated. These patents are then treated as national patents in each of the designated countries. You will find information on the countries where this procedure is available here.

For further information on the procedure to file a patent under the European Patent Convention, we suggest that you consult the following links:

Please note that filing a patent application is highly technical and has important implications in terms of cost and time. Therefore, we encourage you to seek legal advice before taking the decision to submit any patent application.

The Unitary patent is a single European patent with unitary effect in the 26 EU Member States which have engaged in an enhanced cooperation to this effect. The unitary patent is granted by the EPO under the rules and procedures of the European Patent Convention. In order to obtain a unitary effect, patent holders need to request the unitary effect at the European Patent Office (EPO) within one month of the date of publication of the patent grant in the European Patent Bulletin.

The Unitary patent may be requested from the date of entry into force of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court. This Agreement was signed by 25 EU Member States and will need to be ratified by at least 13 Member States, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, in order to enter into force. This is predicted to take place in the first quarter of 2018 per the EPO.

No. The unitary patent will co-exist with national patents and with classic European patents (i.e. without unitary effect) as a third option for companies or inventors seeking patent protection in Europe. Patent applicants remain free to choose between national patents, classical European patents and unitary patents. They can also use a combination, such as:

a unitary patent for the Member States participating in the unitary patent cooperation, together with national patents covering the member states which did not take part in this cooperation;

a unitary patent for the Member States participating in the unitary patent cooperation; together with a classic European patent taking effect in one or more Contracting States to the European Patent Convention which do not participate in the cooperation, such as Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Norway, Iceland, etc.

Compared to the “classical” European patent which becomes a bundle of national patents validated in each Member State where protection is requested, the Unitary patent will give its holder a unique patent protection – uniform scope and equal effect of protection - in 26 Member States of the European Union. For the applicants, this entails no further need for national validation, and offers a single annuity, one place to register transfers and licencesand after grant, and no further translation requirements.

The aim of the Unitary patent is to simplify the existing system by offering businesses an alternative route to patent protection and dispute settlement.

The existing system incurs costs for validation and renewal fees in each Member State where protection is granted, including related translation costs. In comparison, there is only a single renewal fee for the Unitary patent, and no validation costs except the cost for one translation during the transitional period.

Indeed, for a transitional period of 12 years, until a machine translation system maintained by EPO (called “Patent translate”) becomes fully operational, a full translation into English of the European patent specifications must be provided if the Unitary patent is granted in German or French or, if the language of the proceedings is English, into an official language of a EU member state. In any case, translations into a relevant EU language may be requested by a court or by a defendant in an infringement case.

Unlike enforcement of European patents, which has to be carried out in each national jurisdiction, the Unitary patent may be enforced or revoked in a single action for all the participating territories before the Unified Patent Court.

The Unified Patent Court will be a common patent court for the 25 Member States that have signed the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court. This Agreement is still undergoing a process of ratification by the contracting Member States and therefore the Court will start to examine cases only when it enters into force.

The European Patent Court will have exclusive competence in respect of actions of infringement, declarations of non-infringement of patents (classical European patents and European patents with unitary effect) and supplementary protection certificates, revocations of patents and declarations of invalidity of supplementary protection certificates, actions for provisional and protective measures and injunctions.

The UPC will not have competence with regard to national patents or supplementary protection certificates granted for a national patent.

If you have decided to protect your invention by patent in several European and non-European countries, you may consider filing an international patent application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT). Similarly to the EPC, the PCT provides for the filing of a single patent application (usually called an international application) with effect in several countries. The difference is that a PCT patent application does not have a regional scope like the EPC, but an international one. For further information on the procedure to file a patent under the PCT, we suggest that you consult the following links:

Please note that filing a patent application is highly technical and has important implications in terms of cost and time. Therefore, we encourage you to seek legal advice before taking the decision to submit any patent application.

No. An invention in all fields of technology can be protected, but it must fulfil the following requirements:

Novelty: it must show a new characteristic which is not known in the existing knowledge in its technical field - that is, not being part of the state of the art;

Inventive step: the invention can not be deduced by a person with average knowledge of the technical field;

Practical use: it must be capable of industrial application.

Countries may also deny under their laws patent protection to determined subject matters or types of inventions such as mathematical methods, scientific theories, plant or animal varieties, discoveries of natural substances, commercial methods, or methods for medical treatment (as opposed to medical products).

No. Inventions can also be protected by trade secrets if you keep them in secrecy. In some EU Member States, you may file an application for utility models as well as a patent application.

Patent

Utility Model

Trade Secret

Advantages

exclusive right

effective tool against imitators

protection up to 20 years, which is generally considerably longer when compared to utility models

exclusive right

effective tool against imitators

lower registration costs when compared to patents

no registration costs

protection not limited in time

no disclosure required

Disadvantages

costs for registration can be high

the invention must be disclosed in the application

not available in all countries

costs for registration

shorter protection than patents

not available for all kinds of inventions

often not an effective tool for product inventions

limited remedies available

not easily enforceable

can be patented by others

Thinking about market strategy, publishing an invention may also be an option for protection, if you do not need to have exclusivity. It is certainly a cheaper option and it has the advantage of blocking others from getting a patent on the same invention. However, take into account that you will be revealing your innovation to possible competitors.

Conducting patent searches is very useful for several purposes, not only for organisations such as SMEs and universities, but also for researchers. Indeed, patent databases are a goldmine of technical and commercial information that can be used to:

guide the definition of an organisation’s IP strategy (identifying, for example, any barriers to developing an IP strategy, the avoidance of obstacles, etc.);

define the state of the art (to find out what already exists, to check novelty, to improve the quality of a patent application, to understand the IP landscape surrounding your projects and IP);

check for freedom to operate (to check if you do not infringe someone else's rights, or to search for the validity of third parties’ IP);

check if someone is not in a position of infringing your rights (infringement still needs to be proved);

keep track of who’s doing what (commercial intelligence).

Many of the patent applications that you can find in the databases are not even “in force” and therefore are free to be used in your own projects. This can happen for different reasons, such as the application's failure, withdrawal or expiry.

Patent owners in the EU are generally entitled to prevent others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing for these purposes the invention without prior authorisation.

Consequently, if you get patent protection, other persons and organisations cannot exploit your patent protected work without your consent. However, it is important to remember that you will be entitled to this set of rights only in the territories where you have been granted a patent and as long as the patent subsists.

The meaning of the expression “Patent Pending” varies depending on the national law of each country. However, in principle this term is used in reference to:

- the legal status of a patent application - “notice given (by the relevant Intellectual property office) that an application for a patent has been filed and that legal protection (including retroactive rights) may be forthcoming” – source: EPO

- a warning notice that is affixed in products to inform the public that an application for a patent on that product was filed and to ward off potential infringers; even if not compulsory, such a notice can be particularly relevant in court infringement proceedings. On the other side, in most countries you are allowed to apply the term “patent pending” to a product only if there is, in fact, a pending patent application. If a product is marked with “patent pending” when there is no associated patent application, most national laws in the EU countries sanction this behaviour - usually under competition law and/or patent law.

The inventor is the creator of the invention. In the EU this term is defined by each member state’s legislation. In general, in order for one to be considered an inventor, it is acknowledged that a certain level of contribution to the development of the creative elements of an invention (technical creativity) must be met. Inventors are always private individuals and are always entitled to be designated on the patent, regardless of who files the application. Joint inventors or co-inventors exist when a patentable invention is the result of the inventive work of more than one inventor, even if they did not contribute in equal parts.

According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), of which all EU member states are signatories, in principle the inventor, or his successor, has the right to the patent. In practice, whoever applies for a patent is presumed to be the inventor, so the inventor and the applicant usually coincide. In many jurisdictions, however, the applicant will not necessarily be the inventor – for instance in cases where the ownership of the invention has been contractually assigned to another entity – even if the inventor will always keep the right to be mentioned as such in the application. This greatly depends on national law, although the EPC regulates the question in broad terms. In particular, in several countries there are laws on employees’ inventions and on inventions made at universities (professors’ privilege) that may establish a special regime. For example, it is very common that in the context of an employment relationship, rights in inventions created by employees are assigned to the employer by the employment contract or considered as belonging to the employer by law. In that case, the applicant (i.e. the future owner of the patent) is not the inventor.

Finally, ownership recognises a proprietary right to the invention that will in principle vest in the applicant after the patent is granted. As a proprietary property right, the ownership of a patent can be transferred.

According to the European Patent Convention, a patent application filed within the EPO provisionally confers from the date of its publication the same rights which a national patent would confer once granted in the designated countries. These are the legal rights which the national law of the designated countries may confer upon the proprietor of a patent on an invention (product or process) when granted. For example, this provisional protection can refer to what acts of third parties constitute infringement of the patent and to the remedies available in respect of infringement. In principle, this means that the applicant can claim reasonable compensation from any person who has used the invention after the publication of the patent application, provided that such use would be considered an act of infringement of a national patent under the relevant national law.

The cost of patent applications varies from country to country and depends on the route taken to pursue protection (national, European or international).

Nevertheless, there are costs other than the fee that you must pay for the application which you should consider, in particular the following:

After the application and during the life of a patent, applicants must pay renewal fees. These payments are requested by most patent offices and are a requirement to keep patents valid (until their expiry date, which is usually after 20 years).

The cost of services of patent attorneys or agents, which in some countries may be very high, must also be added to the total cost.

Translation may be required, which can substantially raise the cost of a patent application.

Even though everyone could theoretically draft their own patent application, we believe that this is not advisable. Patent applications are very technical and, given the costs that they involve as well as the importance of a careful preparation, we encourage you to seek advice from a patent attorney or patent agent.

The Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) can assist you in finding such a specialist. To find the nearest EEN branch, please click here. You may also find lists of authorised patent attorneys in many National Patent Offices and at the European Patent Office.

A supplementary protection certificate extends the period of effective protection for patents on new medical products for which an authorisation to be placed on the market is required.

A supplementary protection certificate serves as a compensation for the investments put into research for the period that elapses between the filing of a patent application for a new medicinal product and the obtention of an authorisation to place such a product on the market.

In the European Union, a supplementary protection certificate can be granted under the following conditions:

· at the date of the application for supplementary protection, a product is protected by a basic patent in force;

· the product has not already been the subject of a certificate;

· a valid and first administrative authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product has been granted.

Supplementary protection certificates are applied for and granted at national level by the competent industrial property office of the Member State where the basic patent has been issued and in which the authorisation to place the medical product on the market was obtained. At national level, each European Union Member State can designate another specific authority for this purpose.

Once granted, the certificate takes effect at the end of the lawful term of the basic patent for a period equal to the period which elapsed between the date on which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the European Union, reduced by a period of five years.

However, the duration of the certificate may not exceed five years from the date on which it takes effect.

This means that the holder of both a patent and a certificate benefits from an overall maximum of 15 years of protection from the moment the medicinal product in question first obtains the authorisationto be placed on the market in the European Union.

Grace period is a specific period of time preceding the filing of a patent application, during which certain types of disclosures of the invention (for which the patent application is filed) do not destroy its novelty.

In general, in order for an invention to be patentable, the novelty criterion has to be fulfilled, that is to say, the invention should not be disclosed to the public before the patent application is filed.

However, some countries under certain circumstances do not take prior disclosures into account in determining patentability, provided they took place within a certain period of time (grace period) preceding the date of filing.

Grace period simply protects the inventor from unauthorised, or (in certain countries) authorised, disclosure of an invention before a patent is filed for. The grace period is usually 6 or 12 months.

Most of the European Patent Convention (EPC) member states adopt a ‘conditional’ patent grace period, that is to say they provide for a grace period under certain circumstances. For instance, in Germany disclosure is not to be taken into account in determining the novelty of a patent if it occurred within six months before the filing date (priority date) due to:

1. an evident abuse to the prejudice of the applicant or his predecessor in title;

2. display of the invention at an official or officially recognized exhibition.

For more information regarding the countries that grace period applies you can have access to the WIPO’s report regarding certain aspects of national/regional patent law available form here.

In many countries, so called well-known trademarks are also protected without being registered. Such obligation result from the provisions of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and the TRIPS Agreement.

Furthermore, in common law countries (such as the UK and Cyprus), unregistered trademarks can also be protected under so called passing off law. Passing off is a common law tort and protects the goodwill of a trader from a misrepresentation. In other words, it prevents one trader from misrepresenting goods or services as being the goods and services of someone else.

Trade marks are signs used in trade to identify products and services. More specifically, a trade mark is a symbol your customers use to pick you out. It may consist of any sign, particularly words, including personal names, designs, letters, numerals, the shape of goods or of their packaging, or sounds, provided that they can be clearly represented on the register and are capable of distinguishing the goods or services of your undertaking from those of other undertakings.

Unlike other intellectual property rights (patents, designs, copyrights), you can hold the right to your trade mark indefinitely. However, in order for your trade mark to be protected, it has to be renewed on a regular basis. The period of trade mark protection may vary, but is usually ten years and it can be renewed indefinitely upon payment of additional fees.

You should notice that, for the most of the countries, it is the trade mark owner’s responsibility to observe the time limit for renewal. However, national IP offices will usually inform you or your representative few months before the expiry date that your trade mark is due for renewal. The same applies for European Union Trade Marks (EUTMs) issued by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

EUIPO will generally inform you, or your representative, six months before the expiry date that your EUTM is due for renewal. Moreover, any other person holding a right to your EUTM, e.g. a licensee, will also be informed by the EUIPO.

Trade mark protection is territorial by nature, i.e. the geographic scope of protection for trade marks is limited and depends on the place of registration. Hence, it is advised that you consider applying for protection for your brand in all territories of your commercial interest. E.g. think not only about intended markets of distribution of a product, but also about the place it is manufactured.

Note that trade mark protection can be obtained in few alternative ways. Depending on the brand characteristics and planned commercial strategy, it can be registered as:

· a European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) for the entire European Union by filing a unique application at the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO);

· as a national title, applied for separately in respective counties of interest;

· an international registration at World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) which is equivalent to a bundle of national registrations;

If you wish to register a trade mark which would be valid in the whole EU, you can apply for a European Union Trade Mark (EUTM). For doing so, you should file an application to the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). As regards a EUTM applications, however, registration criteria will have to be assessed on a Community-wide scale and have be met at the same time in all 28 EU Member States. This might be problematic for many brand owners. That is why many of them decide for a national/international route instead. You can read more about EUTMs on EUIPO's website:

If your intention is to obtain a national protection in your country or in any other country, you should file an application to the respective national IP office. For information on national applications and procedures please visit websites of the national IP offices of interest - http://www.wipo.int/directory/en/urls.jsp

Lastly, you may wish to register a trade mark internationally. A single international registration is equivalent to a bundle of national registrations. Although it is a single registration, protection may be refused by some or all IP offices of the designated countries. Please note that you can file an international application only with regards to the countries part of the so-called Madrid system (all EU Member States participate in Madrid system). It is administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and offers a one-step solution for registering and managing trade marks worldwide. Its advantage is that you can have your trade mark protected in up to 117 member states by filing one sole application in a selected language and by paying one single registration fee.

Trade mark searches are extremely important and typically designed to determine whether a particular trade mark is available for use on a relevant territory. Trade mark search is an investigation to discover potential conflicts between a proposed mark and the existing ones. Searches help to determine if you can register your trade mark on a relevant territory. The search may identify trade marks that are visually, phonetically, or conceptually the same or similar to the trade mark to be adopted and that cover the same or similar goods or services. The search report notes all use of identical or similar marks and the products or services in relation to which they are used. Conducting searches helps to avoid objections and reduces the possibility of infringement of the rights of a prior user or registrant.

A trade mark registration is performed in a specific area - always in connection with certain products and/or services offered by its owner. The International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) is an international classification of goods and services - it groups goods and services into thematic classes for the purposes of the registration of trade marks. The heading of each class indicates the products or services included.

A trade mark with a reputation may be protected from unauthorised use in relation to non-competing goods and/or services. They are protected in case the use of a later trade mark without due cause would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade mark. When determining whether a trade mark has a reputation, the following aspects should be taken into consideration: the duration, extent, and geographical reach of advertising and publicity of the trade mark; the amount, volume, and geographical extent of sales of goods and services offered under the mark; the extent of actual recognition of the mark.

The wording of the Article 6bis of the Paris Convention and(or) Art. 16(2) of the TRIPS Agreement as well as the Article 5(2)(d)of the Trade Mark Directive refers to a well-known mark. Well-known marks are usually protected irrespective of the fact as to whether they are registered or not. Furthermore, they are protected for goods and/or services which are identical with, or similar to, those for which they have gained their reputation if there is a likelihood of confusion in the relevant sector of the public. In some countries they are also, under certain conditions, protected for dissimilar goods and services.

The appearance of the product itself or of the packaging of a product is protectable as a three-dimensional trade mark.

Some criteria of examination of the three-dimensional trade mark that consist of the appearance of the product itself are the same as for other categories of trade marks. However, it may be more difficult to come to a finding of distinctiveness. In general, a three-dimensional trade mark that consist of the appearance of the product itself can only be regarded as sufficiently distinctive if the shape departs significantly from the norm or customs of the sector and can thus be perceived as an indication of origin of the goods and/or services.

Additionally, in order to obtain protection, a form/shape must meet the following legal requirements:

- the form/shape must not be necessary to achieve a technical result;

- the form should not be imposed by the nature or the function of the product itself (e.g. the shape of a football for a football);

- the form should not give substantial value to the product (shapes which exclusively realise an aesthetic function, such as the shape of an object of art for objects of art).

The International Classification of Goods and Services for the Purposes of the Registration of Marks (Nice Classification) is available in its entirety on the website of the World Intellectual Property Organisation.

In case of prolonged non-use of its mark, the owner may be deprived of its rights. Revocation of a mark is always pronounced by the courts following an application for revocation of the rights of the proprietor. It may be requested by any person if the owner has not begun to exploit its trade mark as it has been registered or has abandoned the use of its trade mark. Revocation of a mark may be total or partial - for all or part of the goods and services specified in the deposit.

In most countries, a mark will not be so cancelled unless it can be established that there has been at least three years of non-use. In this context, it would be advisable to check the legal position in the country or countries for which the trade mark has been registered. If, however, the owner of a mark can establish that, despite every intention to use the mark, it was prevented from doing so due to circumstances beyond its control, the mark may not be subject to cancellation.

Trade mark protection is territorial in nature. This means that, provided all conditions are met, such protection will be granted to your name only in the territories in which you have registered it as a trade mark. In other words, registering your name as a European Union Trade Mark only gives you exclusive rights to use that name with regard to specific goods and services (the ones identified in your application) across the European Union only.

For this reason, it is always advisable to develop your trade mark protection strategy in line with your business strategy – that is, to seek trade mark protection in all the countries where you intend to commercialise your products.

If you do not do so, your name or a similar one may be registered by third parties in those countries, possibly for similar or identical goods. Since you will not have exclusive trade mark rights over this name in these jurisdictions, others will indeed be allowed to protect it via trade mark. This might lead consumers in this area to mistake someone else’s products for yours. Commercialising your own product in those jurisdictions under “your” name, but without securing exclusive rights to it, might even in this context constitute an infringement of those third parties’ rights.

Furthermore, even if no-one else registers a name similar or identical to your trade mark in those countries, not having a registered trade mark there means that you will not have any intellectual property rights to that name in these territories. If other entities (such as competitors) copy your products and sell them on these markets under “your” name, you will not be able to enforce any rights (since you will not have any such rights in those territories) and in particular will not be able to exercise anti-counterfeiting actions.

A trade secret refers to information which meets the following requirements:

it is secret, meaning that it is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question;

it has commercial value because it is secret; and

it has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person in control of the information, to keep it secret.

The type of information that can be considered as a trade secret is therefore highly diversified, including know-how, technological knowledge, business and commercial data such as lists of customers, business plans, recipes or manufacturing processes. Even though most business information could potentially be regarded as a trade secret, in practice most of it does not need to be treated as such since it has no commercial value. It is therefore important that companies are aware of the information that they consider secret, allowing their effective protection and management.

Trade secrets are not protected by a specific intellectual property right. Therefore trade secrets do not confer “proprietary rights”, meaning that the holder of a trade secret does not have exclusive rights over the information. Thus, to protect trade secrets, organisations are advised to take measures and implement a range of best practices to make sure that the trade secret is kept confidential.

concluding non-disclosure agreements in the case where trade secrets must be discussed with business partners;

including non-disclosure clauses within agreements such as licence agreements, consortium agreements or partnership agreements, where the exchange of confidential information is very likely and/or necessary.

These measures are highly important since once the information is leaked, others can use it freely since no proprietary right to the trade secret exists.

However, if the information was leaked by someone under the obligation to keep confidentiality, such a disclosure would constitute a breach of contract allowing remedies for the trade secret holder. Moreover, if a person obtains the trade secret by dishonest means (such as in the case of espionage), all countries in the European Union offer some form protection under unfair competition law.

Non-disclosure agreements, also called confidentiality agreements, are legally binding contracts establishing the conditions under which one party (the disclosing party) discloses information in confidence to another party (the receiving party).

Depending on the number of parties disclosing information, non-disclosure agreements may be “one-way” (also known as unilateral) with one party disclosing information and one party receiving information, or “two-way” (also known as bilateral or mutual) when there is a bilateral disclosure. Whenever the two parties wish to disclose information instead of relying on a “two-way” agreement, it is also possible to sign two unilateral non-disclosure agreements, which may sometimes facilitate negotiations on the drafting of such an agreement. Sometimes you may also see multilateral agreements, with more than two parties involved.

All types of information can be exchanged under non-disclosure agreements, such as ideas, know-how, descriptions of inventions, chemical formulas, research or business information and negotiations, among others. The common characteristic, however, is that the disclosed information is valuable to the disclosing party to the extent that it must be kept away from the public domain.

In fact, in the European Union several types of intellectual property rights, in particular patents and industrial designs, demand novelty as a requirement for acquiring protection. In most of the EU countries, a creation is considered new if it has not been previously made available to anyone anywhere, unless under confidence obligations. Moreover, some intellectual assets are generally not patentable in many countries of the European Union, such as methods for doing business, and therefore can only be protected if kept out of the public domain. On the other hand, organisations can strategically decide that keeping information confidential is the most appropriate way of protection. Independently of the reason, in all these scenarios, non-disclosure agreements are the recommended tool to use for the purpose of protecting information when it is necessary to transmit it in confidence.

Thus, it is best practice to conclude non-disclosure agreement before engaging in negotiations for licence agreements and R&D projects, or whenever necessary to show innovative ideas, products or technologies to potential business partners or other persons. Confidentiality obligations may also be part of a larger agreement, such as license agreements, consortium agreements and employment contracts.

In certain cases, having licence rights to a patent will not be enough for the licensee to use, exploit or manufacture the related invention in an efficient way. Beyond the patented innovation, the licensee will in many cases need access to the unpatented technical information which relates to it.

In such cases, instead of a mere patent licence, it may be worthwhile to conclude a “patent and know-how licence” in order for the licensor to grant access not only to its invention, but also to the technical know-how relevant thereto. This will enable the licensee to fully use and understand the invention.

Of course, licensing know-how will only make sense insofar as this know-how has been kept secret, i.e. that there is an economic value to it and a need for the licensee to gain access to that knowledge, which would otherwise not be known nor be readily accessible.

Licensing secret know-how can involve some risks linked to its potential, unwanted disclosure to third parties. For this reason, a patent and know-how licensing agreement should address questions of confidentiality and non-disclosure in a thorough manner, in order to define as precisely as possible the ways in which the licensee can use and further disclose the licensed know-how. The licensee, its staff and relevant third parties (such as possible subcontractors) should be given confidentiality obligations which are, in their scope and strength, at least as stringent as those put into place by the licensor to protect its trade secret.

Finally, special attention should be given to the duration of the intellectual property right being licensed, since the period of the licence cannot exceed the maximum duration of the right (e.g. 20 years for patents). In the case of a patent and know-how licence, this means that the parties should make a clear difference between the patent licence (which cannot last past the expiration of the patent) and the know-how licence (which the parties may wish to keep in force after the expiration of the patent).

Although an idea - a business information or valuable know-how - is not protectable by specific intellectual property rights, it can still be secured via contractual mechanisms - by setting up confidentiality obligations. When you meet potential business partners you will have to disclose your idea, explain its intended purpose and describe your expectations concerning the future product or service. It is true that once learned information/know-how cannot be forgotten by your interlocutors. Therefore, it is the best practice to ensure that a person to whom you are about to disclose your ideas signs a confidentiality agreement before the meeting starts. The purpose of a confidentiality agreement is to obtain a guarantee that once you disclose information to another party, the latter will not be able to use it for his purposes or reveal it to someone else without your consent, regardless of the fact whether you have agreed on a partnership or not.

Furthermore, any confidential business information (e.g. an innovative idea) which can be of considerable commercial value to businesses and which provides an enterprise with a competitive edge, may be considered a trade secret. You can protect your trade secrets as long as you do not allow the confidential information to flow into the public domain. In other words, you shall safeguard your idea by confidentiality measures including clauses in employee contracts and the aforementioned confidentiality agreements. The unauthorised use of such information by anyone other than the owner is regarded as an unfair practice and a violation of the trade secret. Depending on the national legal regime, trade secrets are subject to the protection provided for in unfair competition, labour, criminal, or civil law, to name a few.

Utility models can be registered in some countries to protect technical innovations which might not qualify for a patent. The requirements of protection vary from country to country. However, most countries will only grant utility models for products, not for methods or processes. Because the novelty and inventive step requirements are less stringent than those required for patents, utility models can be useful for incremental inventions where only a small change has been made and which might not meet the inventive step requirements for a patent.

Utility models are a more flexible and less costly way of protection of technical inventions than patents. An inventive step is required but in a lower grade than for a patent and the maximum duration of protection is shorter.

There is no European or international utility model protection. The rules for utility model registrations vary from country to country. Consequently, the requirements for utility model protection will vary depending on the particular national regulations.

One of the main advantages is that filing a utility model is much cheaper than obtaining and maintaining a patent. The lower costs associated with utility models mean that they could be particularly useful for SMEs. Another advantage is that the utility model is normally granted faster than a patent. The utility model will be easily granted since there is usually no substantive examination (e.g. on novelty.) The inventive step requirements are lower than for patents.

This possibility exists in some countries. For example, in Germany it is possible to obtain and keep both a patent and a utility model for the same invention. If a utility model is branched off from a patent application, the patent application can continue to be pursued to the grant stage as well. However, in other countries, such as Japan and China, only a single right for the same invention is allowed to remain in force.

Access rights, a basic term related to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), means those rights (e.g. licences or user rights) to use knowledge or pre-existing know-how given by the owners of the knowledge or pre-existing know-how to others.

According to article II.1.2 of the standard model Grant Agreement, an affiliated entity means “any legal entity that is under the direct or indirect control of a beneficiary, or under the same direct or indirect control as the beneficiary, control taking any of the following forms:

(a) the direct or indirect holding of more than 50% of the nominal value of the issued share capital in the legal entity concerned, or of a majority of the voting rights of the shareholders or associates of that entity;

(b)the direct or indirect holding, in fact or in law, of decision-making powers in the legal entity concerned.”

A parent company, i.e. a company holding enough percentage of the nominal value of the issued share capital of another company to control its management, should therefore not be considered as an affiliated company. Indeed, parent companies are either under the control of a beneficiary (they are in the opposite position, i.e., controlling the beneficiary) or under the same direct control.

Nevertheless, the general principle according to which beneficiaries may agree on more favourable or broader access rights also applies here. For example, beneficiaries could agree in their consortium agreement to grant access rights to affiliates other than those mentioned above, including parent companies. The IPCA Model of Consortium Agreement foresees this possibility, since it establishes a broader definition of affiliated companies, which encompasses entities controlling the beneficiary.

Access rights to another participant’s foreground or background are only to be granted if they are needed in order to carry out the project (for its implementation) or to use one's own foreground.

Access rights needed in order to implement the project shall be granted at least until the end of the project, even by the participants that leave the project before its completion.

However, access rights for use purposes of foreground (exploitation and further research) may be granted up to one year after the end of the project or the termination of the involvement of a participant in a project.

Note that the actual duration of such access rights might be negotiated by the participants concerned and agreed differently (e.g. shorter, longer period or for instance, it might be extended until the expiry of a patent).

The owner of a foreground may grant exclusive licence to a third party, provided that the other participants agree by written means to waive their access rights thereto.

Such a waiver can only be made on a case-by-case basis, and after the concerned foreground has been generated. Participants should be able to assess carefully which specific access rights they are able or willing to renounce. They should also avoid waiving broader access rights than those exactly required to allow granting such an exclusive licence.

The standard model Grant Agreement (GA) establishes provisions relating to access rights to foreground which are “minimal" provisions. The “minimal” access rights mandatory under the GA concern, on the one hand, access rights to beneficiaries and, on the other hand, access rights to affiliated entities established in a Member State or Associated country. These affiliated entities enjoy access rights to foreground under the same conditions as the beneficiary to which it is affiliated, unless otherwise provided for in the GA or Consortium agreement.

Under the mandatory regime of the GA, Non-European affiliate would not be entitled to have access rights to foreground as the provisions of the Article 50.3 of Rules for Participation and Article II.34.3 of GA refer explicit only to affiliated entities established in a Member State or an Associated country.

Nevertheless, the general principle according to which the participants may agree on more favorable or broader access rights also applies here. It is always possible to set provisions extending access rights to affiliates from outside of a Member State or Associated country in further agreements, subject to consensus of relevant project participants.

In this instance it is important to emphasize that the European Commission retains the right to object to the grant of an exclusive license to a third party established in a third country which is not associated to FP7 if it considers that this is not in accordance with the interests of developing the competitiveness of the European economy or is inconsistent with ethical principles or security considerations (Article 43 of Rules for Participation and Article II.32.8 of GA)

In case the of transfer of the whole ERC single beneficiary project, the new host institution will have no obligation towards the previous host institution concerning grant of access rights to the foreground generated after the project transfer, as the latter will be considered a third party to the project once such transfer succeeds.

Subject to the conditions established in the Grant Agreement, appointment letter or contract, the Commission and the participants shall keep confidential any data, knowledge and documents communicated to them as confidential.

When applicants send proposals to the European Commission they set out details of the work, which is intended to be carried out under the project. Many ideas are, therefore, put forward by participants when submitting their proposals to the European Commission. This information is not only disclosed to the European Commission, but also to the independent experts, who assist in the evaluation of proposals.

Even though ideas are generally not protected under intellectual property rights, this does not mean that you do not have any type of tool you may use to protect them. In fact, you may rely on confidentiality to make sure that your ideas are not disclosed to the public, that is, that the people to whom you disclose your ideas have the obligation to keep them secret (i.e. not reveal them to anyone else).

Thus, all proposals and related data are treated under the principle of confidentiality by the European Commission. Independent experts must, therefore, sign an appointment letter binding them to maintain confidentiality of any document and data received.

The Rules for Participation and the standard model Grant Agreement establish that the European Commission and participants undertake to keep confidentiality of any data, documents or other material concerning the execution of the project that has been communicated to them as confidential.

The level of confidentiality, however, may differ depending on the people to whom the data, documents or other material may be disseminated. The European Commission has established the following codes to distinguish between these different levels of confidentiality:

One of the requirements of inventions’ patentability is novelty. To be regarded as new, generally, an invention cannot be disclosed or made available to others before the date on which an application was filed. Moreover, there are some types of information that are not patentable, such as methods and many forms of know-how, which may only be protected if they are kept confidential.

However, such inventions and information can be disclosed to others if under confidence. A NDA is the tool that allows confidentiality obligations to be in place. Indeed, a NDA is a written agreement that establishes the conditions under which information or ideas are disclosed in confidence.

To see a checklist of the most common issues that should be considered when drafting such an agreement, pleaseclick here.

The preparation and submission of a proposal usually requires meetings and exchange of information among the project’s partners. At this point, among other issues, applicants should define the work packages and describe the research idea, which may result in the disclosure of valuable information.

To avoid any eventual misappropriation and use of such information, which could undermine its value and protection as an Intellectual Property Right (i.e. patent), it is advisable to conclude a non-disclosure agreement or NDA before entering in negotiations for the submission of a proposal.

Thus, we suggest applicants, in particular the coordinator, to explain the other partners of the project the advantages of having a NDA in place and propose a draft agreement to be negotiated before further discussions.

As any other agreement, a NDA must be adapted to the circumstances of each project. Hence, there is not a standard NDA. Nevertheless, there are some issues that in most cases should be considered by the parties involved, such as the following:

Identification of the parties;

Indicate the intentions of the parties in order to explain the context of the agreement;

Identify the call and the name/acronym of the project;

Clarify what should be considered as confidential information (e.g. all information or just information marked as “confidential”);

Define very precisely the permitted purpose of the disclosure in order to restrict the use of the information;

Consider the need to disclose the confidential information to employees;

List the obligations of the party receiving the information;

List any information considered as excluded;

Determine the entry into force of the NDA;

Determine the period of time of the confidentiality obligation (e.g. 3, 5 or 10 years);

Yes, it is. Before the evaluation process at the European Commission (EC), both evaluators and observers have to sign a contract with the EC that specifically includes a confidentiality clause as well as well as a no conflict of interest declaration.

They are required to commit themselves by an “appointment letter for independent experts” (based on the model given in Annex F of the “Rules for submission of proposals, and the related evaluation, selection and award procedures”), stating that they will conform to the principles outlined therein and will follow the rules and procedures set by the EC. This includes keeping all information gained during the evaluation process confidential and not retaining (or copying) any materials that pertain to proposals or the evaluation.

A Consortium Agreement refers to the internal organisation of the consortium. Depending on the area or sector of the each project and of the grade of technical complexity that are involved, the Consortium Agreement might generally contain the following:

provisions on the governance structure of the consortium;

technical provisions (e.g. the tasks of each party and the project schedule);

managerial provisions (e.g. coordination and management);

financial provisions (e.g. the distribution of the Community financial contribution, the financial plan, etc);

provisions regarding IPR and related issues such as dissemination, use and accessibility of the results, confidentiality provisions, as well as arrangements on the settlement of disputes and liability and confidentiality.

The Consortium Agreement models are developed by different organisations concerned in the proper management of projects under FP7. The European Commission has, however, not made available any "official" model. As these models respond to different areas, they may vary in content and in particular with regard to the provisions relating to intellectual property rights. All parties should fully read and understand the model that they are going to use, confirm that it serves their interests, and adapt it to specific needs if required.

There are several models of Consortium Agreements that have been created by different entities and that may be used by participants under FP7 projects.

The European Commission, however, has not drafted any model. Indeed, it has been only made available a check list with non-binding guidance on the issues that participants may consider in their Consortium Agreements.

The Grant Agreement establishes the main rights and obligations of participants towards the European Commission and is, generally, based on models prepared to be applied in all projects. This agreement does not have, therefore, detailed provisions on the specific project and consortium.

Thus, it is highly recommended (if not mandatory) that participants sign between them a Consortium Agreement aimed to establish in detail the rules on the internal management of the consortium. This agreement shall have inter alia additional rules on dissemination, use and access rights.

When you submit your proposal it is not necessary to have a Consortium Agreement already signed between all potential participants. Generally, you will only have to conclude the agreement before signing the Grant Agreement with the European Commission (on behalf of the EU).

It is highly recommended (if not mandatory) that participants sign between them a Consortium Agreement aimed to establish in detail the rules on the internal management of their consortium.

According to the Rules for Participation, this agreement shall include inter alia additional rules on dissemination, use and access rights. In particular, and following the guidance of the European Commission in its publication “Checklist for a Consortium Agreement for FP7 projects”, the following IPR related clauses may be included in the Consortium Agreement:

(i) Ownership of foreground – to deal with the ownership of foreground developed in the project, including possible joint ownership;

(ii) Transfer of foreground – to deal with, for example, the procedure to give prior notice to other participants in the project;

The European Union in FP7 projects may contribute to a maximum of 100% of the total costs of activities concerning protection, dissemination and management of IPR.

The Financial Guide to FP7 projects includes examples of intellectual property activities which may be reimbursed up to 100% of eligible costs. These are “filing and prosecution of patent (and other IPR) applications, including patent searches and legal advice”.

Thus, the following costs concerning patent protection might be considered as eligible:

patent application fees;

expenses for patent searches;

remuneration paid to patent attorneys or other legal practitioners with regard to the filing and prosecution of a patent.

Intellectual property activities are “other activities” in accordance with the Article II.16 of the Grant Agreement. Their costs, in order to be eligible, shall fulfill the prerequisites of the Article II.14.1 of the Grant Agreement. In particular, they must be charged during the contractual period.

Finally, bear in mind that contracting of a legal practitioner for filing and prosecution of patent may be considered to be subcontracting in accordance with the Article II.7 of the Grant Agreement.

In FP7 Euratom there are two associated specific programmes; one in the fields of fusion energy research and nuclear fission and radiation protection, the other in the nuclear field undertaken by the Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC). The JRC has become a leading institute of nuclear research in Europe.

FP7 Euratom aims to address the major issues and challenges in nuclear research and to contribute to the further consolidation of the European Research Area (ERA) in the nuclear energy sector.

F4E is the ‘European Joint Undertaking for ITER and the Development of Fusion Energy’. It is the EU domestic agency responsible for providing Europe’s contribution for the implementation of ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor). This international project aims to demonstrate that fusion may be a viable and sustainable source of energy for human consumption. ITER initiative is the world’s largest scientific partnership which brings together seven parties: the EU, Russia, Japan, China, India, South Korea and the United States.

F4E also supports fusion research and development initiatives through the Broader Approach Agreement (signed with Japan) which aims to complement the ITER Project, and the development of advanced technologies for the construction of demonstration fusion reactors (DEMO).

The F4E Joint Undertaking was created under the Euratom Treaty by a decision of the Council of the European Union. It was established for a period of 35 years (from 19 April 2007) and it is located in Barcelona, Spain.

For the implementation of its tasks, and in order to work together with European industry, SMEs and research organisations, F4E uses two contract mechanisms: grant agreements (grants) and procurement contracts (procurement) which are underpinned by the principles of transparency, proportionality, equal treatment and non-discrimination

Procurement contracts are awarded to contractors in order to obtain the supply of assets, the execution of works and/or the provision of services. These contracts are granted according to calls for tenders that may take one of the following forms: open procedure, restricted procedure, negotiated procedure or competitive dialogue. Procurement results in a proper commercial agreement which provides contractors with 100% of the financial contribution from F4E.

Grants are direct financial contributions that fund beneficiaries, by way of donation, for research and development actions in order to support F4E’s tasks. Co-financing and non-profit rules are mandatory in accordance with F4E’s financial regulations. In contrast to procurement contracts, grants are limited to 40% of financial contribution, the remaining part being borne by the beneficiaries.

The different funding rates between grants and procurement imply different rules for the management of IP in the related projects.

On 10 April 2007 the European Commission adopted the general model Grant Agreement to be used in research projects funded under the 7th Framework Programmes. This model Grant Agreement is applicable to the indirect actions under the Cooperation and Capacities Specific Programmes of FP7. It consists of a core text and several annexes. There is also a list of special clauses to be introduced in the Grant Agreement where necessary.

Separate model Grant Agreements have been adopted for the parts of the Cooperation (Space, Security), Capacities (Research for the benefit of SMEs) and People (Marie Curie) Specific Programmes that are under Research Executive Agency (REA) responsibility and for the Ideas (European Research Council) Specific Programmes.

The Grant Agreement establishes the respective rights and obligations of the participants with regard to access rights, use and dissemination. For those purposes, it requires the submission to the Commission of a plan for the use and dissemination of foreground.

The European Commission adopted a standard model Grant Agreement to be used in projects under the Cooperation Specific Programme of FP7. The same model is also applicable to projects under the Capacities Programme. It consists of a core text, several annexes and a list of special clauses to be introduced in the Grant Agreement where necessary.

Projects under the Cooperation (Space, Security) Specific Programme, which are under the responsibility of the Research Executive Agency (REA) do not follow the standard model, there is a specific model Grant Agreement for these projects.

The European Commission adopted a standard model Grant Agreement to be used in projects under the Cooperation Specific Programme of FP7. The same model is also applicable to projects under the Capacities Programme. It consists of a core text, several annexes and a list of special clauses to be introduced in the grant agreement where necessary.

The projects under the Capacities (Research for the benefit of SME's) Specific Programme, which are under the responsibility of the Research Executive Agency (REA) do not follow the same standard model, there is a specific model Grant Agreement for these projects.

There is a specific model Grant Agreement to be used in projects under the Ideas Programme supported by the European Research Council (ERC). It consists of a core text and several annexes. There is also a list of special clauses and a template for supplementary agreement (Legal Entity - Principal Investigator).

There is a specific model Grant Agreement to be used in projects under the People Programme (Marie Curie) conducted by the Research Executive Agency (REA). It consists of a core text, several annexes and a list of special clauses.

The Grant Agreement has the main rules concerning IP that you must follow under your project. Additionally, you should consider the provisions of the Consortium Agreement you have signed with the other participants in the project. Both agreements provide you the main framework of your IP obligations under your project.

Generally, the provisions of the Grant Agreement concerning IP can be found in Annex II. For specific projects, such as the actions for SMEs and for SMEs associations, you may also need to consider Annex III of the Grant Agreement. In addition, in some specific projects, clauses from the list of special clauses may be introduced into the core Grant Agreement.

The Framework Programmes for Research have two main strategic objectives: one is to strengthen the scientific and technological base of the European industry and the second is to encourage its international competitiveness, while promoting research that supports EU policies.

The complete name of FP7 is the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development. It spans seven years from 2007 through 2013. This programme is a reflection of the high priority of research in Europe.

Most of the funds will be spent on grants to research actors all over Europe and beyond, in order to co-finance research, technological development and demonstration projects. Grants are determined on the basis of calls for proposals and a peer review process, which are highly competitive.

In order to complement national research programmes, activities funded from FP7 must have a “European added value”. One key aspect of the European added value is the transnationality of many actions: research projects are carried out by consortia which include participants from different European (and other) countries; fellowships in FP7 require mobility over national borders. Indeed, many research challenges (e.g. fusion research, etc), are so complex that they can only be addressed at European level.

The "coordinator" has a very specific role amongst the participants in a given project. It has to "monitor the compliance by participants (or beneficiaries) with their obligations under the grant agreement, which includes the participants' obligations regarding IPR, dissemination and use issues."

FP7 is the natural successor of the FP6. The new FP7 was established after consultation with the research communities from both public and private sectors, economic actors and with decision takers in the European Union. FP7 is both larger and more comprehensive than its predecessors. It is also more flexible and with simplified procedures. For detailed information on the previous FP6 programme, please click here.

The duration of FP7 is longer than FP6 and it has a much larger budget. It also has a different structure, introduces the European Research Council to oversee the funding of basic research, and includes the new Joint Technology Initiatives (JTI) funding instrument. Another change is that the international dimension is integrated into the various programmes of FP7. The duration of the Framework Programme has been extended from four to seven years; FP7 runs from 2007 to 2013, while FP6 ran from 2002 to 2006. The overall budget has increased significantly for FP7.

International Cooperation Partner Countries (ICPC) (e.g. Russia and other Eastern European and Central Asian states, developing countries, Mediterranean partner countries, Western Balkans countries) may participate in the FP7. Participants from these countries are entitled to receive funding under the same conditions as the EU Member States. The one additional requirement for the projects including ICPCs is that the determined number of participants from the EU Member States or from the Associated Countries must be included. Participation from industrialised high-income countries is also possible on a self-financing basis, with EU funding granted only in exceptional cases.

Capacities – research for the benefit of SMEs and specific activities of international cooperation.

A fifth specific programme under the Euratom Framework Programme concerns nuclear research. The non-nuclear research activities of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) are grouped under a specific programme.

The core of FP7, representing two thirds of the overall budget, is the Cooperation programme. It fosters collaborative research across Europe and other partner countries through projects by transnational consortia of industry and academia.

The People Programme contains 12 types of “Actions”. The most interesting to companies are Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways (IAPPs), partnerships between the public or non-commercial sector (including universities, research institutes, NGOs) and the private, commercial research sector (including SMEs, manufacturing and other industries), based on common research. However, Marie Curie Initial Training Networks (ITNs), aimed at the initial training of researchers, may also be of interest to the industry; initial training is offered to researchers through this action in order to improve their research and complementary skills, help them join established research teams, and enhance their career prospects in both the public and private sectors.

The Capacities programme strengthens the research capacities that Europe needs if it is to become a thriving knowledge-based economy. It covers among others research for the benefit of SMEs and specific activities of international cooperation.

The term "Intellectual Property Rights" refers to the legal rights granted with the aim to protect the creations of the intellect. These rights include Industrial Property Rights (e.g. patents, industrial designs and trademarks) and Copyright (right of the author or creator) and Related Rights (rights of the performers, producers and broadcasting organisations).

Participants are strongly encouraged to consider and tackle IPR issues as soon as possible during the preparation of their project and to negotiate any relevant questions with the other participants before starting the project. Indeed, IPR issues can affect both the way a project is conducted, and the exploitation of results after the end of a project. Moreover, certain provisions foresee a default regime if no alternative agreement has been reached.

FP7 was adopted by the European Union (EU) with clear objectives, in particular to strengthen industrial competitiveness and to meet the research needs of other EU policies. It is therefore natural that the EU shaped this funding programme with regulations, some concerning IP, aimed at better achieving those goals. Hence, participants should be familiar with the specific IP rules related to the programme in question. It is of particular importance in terms of IP to consider the following documents:

the Model Grant Agreement concerning the specific programme (by reading this document, in particular Annex II, applicants may anticipate the specific IP rules they would have to comply with in case the proposal is accepted);

the call fiche (to verify whether there is any special clause to be included in the Model Grant Agreement related to IP);

the Guides for Applicants applicable to the specific call which may help to identify the concrete evaluation criteria that may require the consideration of IP related matters;

The basic regulation of issues related to intellectual property (IP) rights in a project funded under FP7 is established in the Rules for participation and, more specifically, in the Grant Agreement (essentially, Annex II), which participants conclude with the Commission in order to carry out the project. Furthermore, participants may develop this basic regime in internal agreements, particularly in the Consortium Agreement. Note that the latter cannot contradict the Grant Agreement; it can only further detail it and integrate it.

Most of the provisions can be found in Annex II, Part C, Section 1 and 2 of the Grant Agreement. However, for certain types of FP7 projects, more specific IPR provisions may be found in Annex III, such as the ones applicable to research actions for SMEs or for SME associations. In specific cases, "special clauses" may also be included in Article 7 of the core Grant Agreement with rules concerning IP. A list of all “special clauses” is available with the Model Grant Agreement.

Moreover, it is important to be aware that in addition to the standard Model Grant Agreement, separate models have been adopted for the parts of the 'Cooperation' (Space, Security), the 'Capacities' (Research for the benefit of SME's) and the 'People' (Marie Curie) Specific Programmes that are under REA responsibility, and for the 'Ideas' (European Research Council) Specific Programmes.

Knowledge, a basic term of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), means the results, including information, whether or not they can be protected, as well as copyrights or rights pertaining to such information following applications for, or the issue of, patents, designs, plant varieties, supplementary protection certificates or similar forms of protection.

Background is information and knowledge (including inventions, databases, etc.) held by the participants prior to their accession to the Grant Agreement, as well as any intellectual property rights which are needed for carrying out the project or for using foreground.

Foreground means the results, including information, materials and knowledge, generated in a given project, whether or not they can be protected. It includes intellectual property rights (such as rights resulting from copyright protection, related rights, design rights, patent rights, plant variety rights, rights of creators of topographies of semiconductor products), similar forms of protections (e.g. sui generis right for databases) and unprotected know how (e.g. confidential material).

Thus, foreground includes the tangible (e.g. prototypes, micro-organisms, source code and processed earth observation images) and intangible IP results of a project. Results generated outside a project (i.e. before, after or in parallel with a project) do not constitute foreground. Results generated in parallel with a project are often informally referred to as "sideground".

In some cases the Grant Agreement foresees that third parties may carry out some work in the project, for example as subcontractors, affiliates or members of a joint research unit. Nevertheless, even in these situations third parties do not become participants.

A department or university faculty can be a participant in a project if it is considered as a legal entity. Nevertheless, when a department or university faculty (with no legal entity status) participates in a project, the participant will be considered to be the legal entity to which the department or university faculty in question belongs, that is, the private company, university, institution or organization.

Partners acting together under the implementation of the same project form a consortium. Consortium members conclude amongst themselves an agreement (consortium agreement) that allows them to determine detailed provisions necessary to carry out their project. It shall also include rules regarding the settlement of internal disputes between the consortium members. Depending on the arrangements of all consortium members, the jurisdiction chosen to settle disputes can be a national court or an alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as mediation or arbitration. If arbitration is chosen, the consortium agreement will have to determine some or all characteristics of the procedure to be followed. Partners themselves choose the competent jurisdiction for the conflicts arising under, out of or relating to the consortium agreement.

It is, furthermore, advisable to set rules regarding the settlement of internal disputes between potential participants already in the proposal phase. In the proposal phase potential project partners develop ideas for joint research activities and already at this stage certain disputes regarding Intellectual Property may arise. In order to be prepared for such eventuality it is recommended to conclude an agreement which defines the framework of the negotiations between applicants and determine competent jurisdiction in case of a dispute (e.g. a memorandum of understanding). Depending on the intentions of the potential project partners, the jurisdiction chosen to settle this kind of dispute can be a national court or an alternative dispute resolution mechanism such as mediation or arbitration.

The Ideas programme will support “frontier research” solely on the basis of scientific excellence. Research may be carried out in any area of science or technology, including engineering, socio-economic sciences and the humanities. In contrast with the Cooperation programme, there is no obligation for cross-border partnerships. Projects are implemented by “individual teams” around a “principal investigator”. The programme is implemented via the new European Research Council (ERC). It is primarily targeted at academics.

Marie Curie Industry-Academia Partnerships and Pathways help commercial and non-commercial research organisations work together. Partners include universities and companies of all shapes and sizes. Focussing on joint research projects, IAPPs aim to boost skills exchange between the commercial and non-commercial sectors.

To qualify for an IAPP, your proposal must include one or more universities or research centres, and one or more enterprises. The industrial partners must be operating on a commercial basis. An IAPP project proposal must come from partners in at least two different EU Member States or Associate Countries. Partners from Third Countries can also join in, but only if enough EU members or associates are also represented in the partnership.

The specific model Grant Agreement applicable in Marie Curie actions establishes in its Annex II the main IPR rules applicable to beneficiaries. In particular, Part C of this annex lays down provisions on foreground and access rights, while in Part A you can find the relevant provision on confidentiality.

It is also important to consider Annex III, since it defines the basic framework for the relation between the beneficiaries and researchers, as well as the associated partners. Please note that you must use the specific model of Annex III available for your action.

Pursuant to the Grant Agreement, beneficiaries have to make sure that researchers enjoy, on a royalty-free basis, access rights to the background and foreground in order to allow them to develop their work under the project. However, these access rights are granted on a “need” basis, which means that they must be granted only if they are necessary for researchers to be able to carry out their research under the project.

In case there is a restriction that might affect the granting of those access rights, researchers must be informed as soon as possible.

In Marie Curie actions, beneficiaries must sign written agreements with the researchers they appoint under the project. This agreement, which must be in accordance with the provisions of the Grant Agreement, is intended to determine the conditions of implementation of the project, as well as the rights and obligations of both the researcher and the beneficiary under the project. The agreement is, therefore, a complement to the Grant Agreement and, in particular, its Annex III.

In terms of Intellectual Property related issues, the Grant Agreement establishes that this agreement shall specify, in particular, the access to the background, the use of foreground, publicity and confidentiality. Thus, it is common to see in these types of agreements clauses concerning the transfer of ownership of the results generated by researchers to the beneficiary, since under the Grant Agreement the results of the projects shall belong to beneficiaries. Confidentiality clauses are also very common in these agreements, since beneficiaries must make sure that researchers also comply with the same confidentiality obligations imposed to the concerned beneficiary.

Pursuant to the Grant Agreement, beneficiaries are bound by confidentially obligations. Such obligations include, for example, the following commitments:

a) to preserve the confidentiality of any data, documents or other material that is identified as confidential in relation to the execution of the project (“confidential information”) during the project and for a period of five years after its completion or any other period thereafter as established in the Consortium Agreement;

b) where confidential information was communicated orally, to confirm its confidential character in writing within 15 days after disclosure;

c) to use the confidential information only in relation to the execution of the project unless otherwise agreed with the disclosing party.

These obligations are also extended to researchers, since the Grant Agreement clearly establishes that beneficiaries shall ensure that researchers have the same rights and comply with the same obligations as the concerned beneficiary. For this reason, the agreement signed between researchers and the appointing beneficiary generally includes a clause concerning confidentiality.

According to the model Grant Agreement foreground shall be the property of the beneficiary carrying out the work generating that foreground. Furthermore, according to the model Grant Agreement foreground means the results, including information, whether or not they can be protected, which are generated under the project. Such results include rights related to copyright; design copy rights; patent rights; plant variety rights; or similar forms of protection.

The results/Intellectual Property generated by the researcher under the project shall, thus, belong to the beneficiary who is considered to be his employer during the secondment period in the host beneficiary's premises.

It is, furthermore, possible that the researcher employed and dispatched by one beneficiary, together with employees of the host beneficiary, creates jointly some results. In such case, the ownership shall be jointly as well. Beneficiaries in such case may create their own regime on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of foreground or agree on an alternative solution (e.g. a single owner with favourable access rights for the other beneficiary that transferred its ownership share).

It is a good practice to include in the Consortium Agreement or Partnership Agreement a clause containing rules for allocation, terms of exercising and management of ownership of the project results within the secondment period.

In Marie Curie actions, beneficiaries are the owners of the project’s results (unless otherwise agreed). These persons are the entities signing the Grant Agreement with the European Union and therefore entitled to the rights and obligations under this agreement. Thus, researchers do not have ownership of the project’s results, including any intellectual property rights such as a patent.

For this reason, often beneficiaries request the researchers to sign an agreement dealing with the transfer of rights from the researcher to the beneficiary, in order to make sure that the beneficiary complies with its obligations under the Grant Agreement.

When beneficiaries sign the Grant Agreement with the European Union they agree to provide the researcher with access rights, on a royalty-free basis, to the background and to the foreground, if that background or foreground is needed for his/her execution of the research project.

This means that researchers can use, for free, background and foreground if they need to use it with the purpose to carry out their tasks in the project. Hence, access rights of researchers over the project’s foreground are limited to the lifetime of the project.

Nevertheless, the obligations under the Grant Agreement are minimal and consequently additional access rights may be granted to researchers. Yet, those additional access rights would have to be negotiated between the researcher and the beneficiary owning the results.

Foreground resulting from a project is owned by the participant generating it. For further details, applicants should read the General Conditions of the Grant Agreement and related documents. When Foreground is generated jointly (i.e. where the separate parts of some result cannot be attributed to different participants), it will be jointly owned, unless the participants concerned agree on a different solution.

Where several participants have jointly carried out work generating foreground and where their respective share of the work cannot be ascertained, they shall have joint ownership of such foreground.

Joint owners must agree among themselves on the allocation and the terms of exercising the ownership of the foreground in accordance with the terms of the Grant Agreement. In the absence of such an agreement (or pending its conclusion), a default joint ownership regime generally applies.

Transfers of ownership of foreground are allowed, although the obligations regarding that foreground must be passed on to the transferee. In principle, as long as the participant concerned is required to grant access rights, notification must be given to the other participants, which may object within a specified period. However, they may agree in advance that no prior notification is necessary with regard to a specifically identified third party.

Before the envisaged transfer takes place, you have to inform the other participants about your intention to transfer the ownership of the foreground you own. This communication must also include sufficient information concerning the identity of the assignee to allow the other participants to exercise their access rights directly to the new owner of the foreground. All this information is communicated to the other participants at least 45 days before the transfer of ownership. Please note, however, that a different notice period may be agreed by participants through a written agreement, often the Consortium Agreement.

Such prior notice is not required, however, in the following cases:

(i) agreed transfers to a specifically identified third party (article II.27.2 of the Grant Agreement);

There is no obligation to notify the European Commission before an intended transfer of foreground’s ownership takes place. However, in some projects a special clause may be introduced in article 7 of the Grant Agreement in order to establish the obligation of such a notification when the owner of the foreground intends to transfer it to a third party established in a non-associated country.

Nevertheless, according to the Rules for Participation, “participants shall ensure that the Commission is informed of any event which might affect the implementation of the indirect action or the interests of the Community.” Additionally, the Commission has the right to object to a transfer of ownership of foreground to a third party established in a third country not associated to FP7. Thus, even though it may not be mandatory, it is advisable to inform the Commission of an intended transfer, in particular when the third party is in a non-associated country.

In FP7 there is a general rule establishing that the foreground generated jointly by the participants will be jointly owned. This is stated both in the Rules for Participation (RfP) and in the Grant Agreement (GA). In case of joint ownership, the joint owners shall establish an agreement regarding the allocation and terms of exercise of that joint ownership. Joint owners may do it by incorporating appropriate provisions in their CA regarding joint ownership or entering into an additional joint ownership agreement. In absence of such an agreement, a default joint ownership regime applies. The joint owners may also agree not to continue with joint ownership but decide on an alternative regime, e.g. appoint a single owner and simultaneously establish more favourable access rights for the remaining beneficiaries that transferred their ownership share or any other fair counterpart.

Participants in the collaborative research projects are usually free to decide on the research results ownership regime. Sole ownership is an option when one participant generates a project result. Alternatively, joint ownership may occur when participants work together upon the results and the impact therein may not be clearly determined. In such cases participants should agree on the terms of the joint ownership, preferably before the project starts and in a separate agreement, which shall cover at least issues outlined below:

Parties: identification of the participants - joint owners;

Object of the contract: the joint ownership of the project results (foreground);

Shares: assignment of shares within the joint ownership;

Shares split equally among all joint owners or

Shares split in proportion to the joint owners contributions;

IP management: indication of the partner responsible for filing and maintaining (including the costs incurred) of the IP rights over the foreground;

Protection of rights: obligation imposed on all participants to monitor and report any infringements of the foreground; indication of the partner empowered to conduct legal actions for protection of the foreground;

Conditions of the use of the foreground;

Use in further research: conditions for use of the foreground for further research carried out with third parties, i.e. joint owners may be required to inform each other of such plans and sign respective confidentiality agreements with the third parties;

Individual exploitation: conditions for exploitation of the common foreground individually in participant’s own commercial activities;

Licensing: possibilities to license (sublicense) the common foreground. This possibility may be totally restricted (i.e. licensing upon agreement of all joint owners) or subject to certain conditions;

Transfer: Determining whether and under what conditions a joint owner may transfer its share to third parties. The rest of the joint owners may reserve the right to be informed of any such plans and/or be given a right to object such transfer;

Joint ownership may cause conflicts between co-owners, which usually takes place if they fail to define in detail the rules with respect to their co-owned IP. Even though most countries provides for basic rules governing joint ownership, these rules may not be sufficient to safeguard the interests of all the participants coming from different jurisdictions. It is therefore essential to have a joint ownership agreement (or joint ownership clauses in the consortium agreement) that would clearly stipulate the jointly owned IP.

Where knowledge created in FP projects is capable of industrial or commercial applications, its owner shall provide for its adequate and effective protection, in conformity with relevant legal provisions, including the contract and the Consortium Agreement, and having due regard to the legitimate interests of the contractors concerned.

Valuable foreground should be protected. Protection is not mandatory in all cases, although the decision not to protect foreground should preferably be made in consultation with the other participants, which may wish to take ownership. If valuable foreground is left unprotected, the Commission may take ownership.

According to the Rules for Participation and the standard model Grant Agreement, foreground resulting from the project is owned by the participant “carrying out the work generating that foreground”. In case participants have carried out the work jointly and their respective share cannot be ascertained, such foreground is generally jointly owned.

Maintaining records, such as laboratory notebooks, illustrating the progress of the creation of results is generally the most practical and effective way to easily demonstrate that you carried out the work generating the foreground. In addition, those laboratory notebooks may assist you in case you need to define your share of the work performed in the creation of a jointly owned foreground.

The standard model Grant Agreement (GA) does not establish the obligation to formally inform or consult the other participants before taking measures to protect the foreground (for example by filing a patent application) or before deciding not to protect it. Nevertheless, it is advisable to inform them in advance, so they be in a position to express possible legitimate interests. Furthermore, Article III.28.3 states explicitly that, where a participant does not intend to protect its foreground, it may first offer to transfer it to another participant or even to certain third parties, which may consider it worthwhile protecting such piece of foreground.

The commitment to provide such information and the terms under which it should be done by participants may be included in detail in the Consortium Agreement or other further agreement.

In the proposal phase potential participants develop ideas for joint research activities. Potential project partners should know what knowledge they each bring, what they may need from others, what the state of the art is in the field of the project, and should develop a strategy on protection, use and dissemination of the future results. Such activities require discussions, exchange of information and ideas between the potential participants. Exchanging information with other potential partners is, thus, a necessity while planning a project proposal.

To avoid any eventual misappropriation and use of such information it is therefore advisable to conclude a non-disclosure agreement (also known as confidentiality agreement) before entering in negotiations for the submission of the proposal. This agreement establishes the conditions under which partners disclose information in confidence. Confidentiality obligations may be also included in a so called memorandum of understanding (MoU). This agreement defines the framework of the negotiations between applicants and is generally concluded in the very beginning of the negotiations for submitting a proposal.

However prior notice about the intention to transfer the foreground must be given to the other project partners together with sufficient information concerning the future owner so as to permit them to exercise their access rights. Transfer of ownership is generally allowed, as long as the obligations regarding that foreground are passed on to the transferee.

Where a participant does not intend to protect a piece of foreground, it should firstly offer to transfer it to other partners. Whether none of the participants intend to protect foreground, they might transfer it to third parties (the inventor, for instance) which may consider worthwhile protecting it, rather than leaving it unprotected and available for use by competitors (Article 44.2 of the Rules for Participation and Article II.28.3 of the Standard Grant Agreement)

These issues may be covered in detail within the consortium agreement or through specific separate arrangements.

Where foreground is capable of industrial or commercial application, it must be protected in an adequate and effective manner by its owner.

However, in case a participant decides not to do so or to abandon protection, it is advisable to inform the other participants in the project “so that they be in a position to express (and substantiate) possible legitimate interests… These issues may be covered in detail within the consortium agreement or through specific separate arrangements” (in Guide to Intellectual Property in FP7).

The European Commission must also be informed so as to be able to assume ownership of the concrete foreground and take measures to protect it on behalf of the European Union, with the consent of the participant concerned.

Another option that participants may consider is to first transfer the foreground to the other participants or to third parties, along with the associated obligations, who may wish to protect it instead.

The aim is to strengthen the “innovation capacity” of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Europe and their contribution to the development of new technology based products and markets. The programme will help them outsource research, increase their research efforts, extend their networks, better exploit research results and acquire technological knowhow, bridging the gap between research and innovation.

SMEs represents 99% of all enterprises in Europe; they contribute more than two thirds of European GDP and provide 75 million jobs in the private sector. They are therefore key to the implementation of the renewed Lisbon strategy for economic growth and employment.

Dissemination means the disclosure of knowledge by any appropriate means (e.g. publications, conferences, workshops, web-based activities). Each participant shall ensure that the foreground it owns is disseminated as swiftly as possible. However, any dissemination (including publications or release of information on web pages) should be delayed until a decision about its possible protection has been made (through IPR or trade secrets).

Proposals will have to contain a "plan for the use and dissemination of foreground" to show that the knowledge generated will be taken through to application. This plan will be updated as a part of the periodic and final reports to reflect the evolving intentions for the protection, use and dissemination of the knowledge generated under the project.

Any dissemination (including publications on web-pages) should be delayed until a decision about its possible protection has been made (through IPRs or trade secrets).

The other participants may object to the dissemination activity if their legitimate interests, in relation to their foreground or background, could suffer disproportionately great harm. Therefore, no dissemination of foreground may take place before a decision is made regarding its possible protection.

The other participants must be given at least 45 days prior notice in writing of any planned dissemination activity (including new web-pages divulging any results obtained), together with sufficient information about the intended dissemination.

The participants may agree in writing (for example in the consortium agreement) on different time-limits to those set out above, which may include a deadline for determining the appropriate steps to be taken to ensure that for example publications relating to a specific piece of foreground are not postponed or delayed unreasonably.

Under FP7, the Commission only needs to be notified ex-ante of dissemination intentions when the foreground to be disseminated is capable of industrial and commercial application and has not been formally protected. Where this is the case, no dissemination activities can take place before the Commission has been informed, in order to give the Commission an opportunity to protect that foreground on its own behalf.

According to article II.30.4 of the standard model grant agreement, participants must include in all dissemination actions the following statement acknowledging the financial support of the European Union:

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement n° xxxxxx.

In case the dissemination is provided in another language, participants should use the correspondent translated version of the sentence. In annex V of the Guide to Intellectual Property Rules in FP7 projects, you can find the translations of the statement in European Union languages other than English.

Moreover, in case of publicity material participants must in addition display the European emblem and specify that the content “reflects only the author’s views and that the Union is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein” (see article II.12.1 of the standard model grant agreement).

In the EU, websites are works which are usually protected by copyright, provided that they are the result of the creativity of their author(s), that is, that they are original. Copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of the work, and grants its owner several exclusive rights such as the rights to copy, to distribute, and to communicate the work to the public.

Please note that the individual works which constitute the website’s contents (such as articles, written reports, guides, videos) will also be individually subject to copyright protection, provided that they fulfil the requirement of originality. Databases included in a website can also be subject to copyright protection if they comply with this requirement of originality. Nevertheless, depending on the applicable national law, a database which does not present an original character may still be protected, under a separate protection regime (a sui generis database right).

As long as your website meets the requirements for copyright protection (in particular a requirement of originality), copyright will arise automatically. Therefore, although it is good practice to include a copyright notice on your webpage, the existence of copyright will not depend on this notice. A copyright notice is, however, useful for the purpose of informing website users of the existence of rights over the content (and thus preventing unintentional infringements from occurring); in certain jurisdictions, it will also be useful in court as a means of proof in case of an infringement dispute.

Please note that an EU-funded project or a consortium does not have legal personality, and therefore cannot as such be legally considered a copyright holder. Therefore, it is advisable to mention the name of the project partner(s) which hold the copyright in the website, rather than the name of the project. However, if many project partners are involved and are all co-owners, an alternative could consist in mentioning “[name of project] partners” as the right holders, in the copyright notice.

The OpenAIRE initiative (Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe) aims to support the implementation of the Open Access policies of the European Commission and the European Research Council. The OpenAIRE portal provides extensive information, statistics and explanations about open access in Europe and allows research participants to locate their open access directory, deposit their publications or data therein, and link research results to funding. OpenAIRE also provides an efficient search tool for publications, data, and projects as well as a very thorough support service (FAQs, glossary, tutorials, guides, useful links, and a helpdesk). You can access the OpenAIRE website here: https://www.openaire.eu/

The CIP is divided into three operational programmes. Each programme has its specific objectives, aimed at contributing to the competitiveness of enterprises and their innovative capacity in their own areas, such as ICT or sustainable energy:

The Information and Communication Technologies Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP) aims at stimulating a wider uptake of innovative ICT based services and the exploitation of digital content across Europe by citizens, governments and businesses, in particular SMEs.

The programme addresses obstacles hindering further and better use of ICT based products and services and barriers for the development of high growth businesses, notably SMEs, in this field. In addition to illustrating and validating the high value of digital technologies for the economy and society, it will foster the development of EU-wide markets for innovations enabling every company in Europe to benefit from the largest internal market in the world.

Yes. The European IPRHelpdesk´s services are conceived to raise awareness of IPR and to provide tailored support on IP issues within research, development and innovation EU funded programmes. The European IPR Helpdesk provides, thus, free of charge expertise and IP related information concerning consortium agreements to the users.

Nevertheless, it does not provide legally binding advice. Users should contact competent authorities, organisations, private consultancies or experts in case any additional advice is needed.

The Grant Agreement establishes the main rights and obligations of participants towards the European Commission and is, generally, based on models prepared to be applied in all projects. This agreement lacks, therefore, detailed provisions on the specific project and consortium.

Thus, it is highly recommended (if not mandatory) that participants sign between them a Consortium Agreement aimed to establish in detail the rules on the internal management of the consortium, namely in terms of IP matters.

They are Eco-Innovation pilot and market replication projects for the testing in real conditions of innovative products, processes and services that are not fully marketed due to residual risks and that are aimed at reducing environmental impacts, preventing pollution or achieving a more efficient use of natural resources. Through the Eco-Innovation funding scheme, the EU wants to support innovative products, services and technologies that can better use our natural resources and reduce Europe's ecological footprint. With its objective to bridge the gap between research and the market, CIP Eco-Innovation contributes to the implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan.

This initiative provides funding for projects in various sectors that mitigate environmental impacts or promote a more efficient use of resources. Priority areas include material recycling, buildings, the food and drink sector as well as greener business. It helps good ideas for innovative products, services and processes that protect the environment to become commercial prospects, ready for use by business and industry.

Calls are open to all legal persons that are based in eligible countries but the priority will be given to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Clusters of applicants and projects which demonstrate a European added value and have a high potential for market replication are strongly encouraged.

Yes. Under article II.3.2 of the Grant Agreement, beneficiaries grant EACI the right to make free use of the results of the action as it deems fit, provided it does not thereby breach its confidentiality obligations or existing industrial and intellectual property rights.

Thus, beneficiaries should have this obligation in consideration when making arrangements concerning the ownership and use of results.

There is no general model grant agreement which would be applicable to all projects under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP). Depending on the respective CIP-sub-programme (e.g. Eco-Innovation, IEE, ICT-PSP) a specific standard model agreement is foreseen. The appropriate model Grant Agreement can be found in the the documentation for each call.

The Intelligent Energy Europe Programme (IEE) helps to deal with the climate change and to achieve energy targets that the EU set for itself. The programme supports concrete projects, initiatives and best practices via annual calls for proposals.

It is very important that potential participants first define which information is going to be used and shared in the project according to its purposes. Registration of IP rights is generally needed to get legal protection and exclusive use of intangible assets. Thus, potential participants should also verify whether the IP assets they identified have been protected as IPR (e.g. patent, industrial design).

Once IP assets are defined and protected, it is essential to consider the appropriate conditions to use and share them within the project, for instance, any economic terms if applicable. In case it is necessary to use any IP belonging to a third party, it is advisable to get adequate authorisations to avoid any future infringement.

At the proposal stage, participants are likely to exchange valuable and confidential information about their assets with others partners. To avoid losing such information, it is advisable to conclude a confidentiality agreement before disclosing any information. Regarding the transmission of the proposal to the EACI, no special agreement is necessary since the experts who evaluate proposals are bound by a confidentiality obligation.

Moreover, during the project, both the project participants and the EACI are bound by the confidentiality obligations incorporated into the specific grant agreement.

In some projects it is necessary to grant access rights to the pre-existing information (results, know how, etc, all these named “background”) and/or to the results generated under the project (“foreground”) when the other consortium partners need them to carry out their own work under the project or to use and exploit their own foreground.

Thus, it is advisable to consult the applicable Grant Agreement in order to check whether in your concrete project it is or not mandatory to grant such rights.

In accordance with the provisions of the model Grant Agreement (when applicable), valuable results (capable of industrial or commercial application) should be protected. Protection is not mandatory in all cases, though the decision to leave results without protection should preferably be made in consultation with the other project partners, which may wish to overtake ownership. Results should be, furthermore, protected in an adequate and effective manner in conformity with the relevant legal provisions, having due regard to the legitimate interests of all project partners.

The Programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME), the successor to the Entrepreneurship and Innovation programme (EIP) under the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP, 2007-2013), is a new European Union (EU) programme which will run from 2014 to 2020 and is meant to encourage and increase the sustainable competitiveness of European Union enterprises and SMEs. Its support activities will focus on the following four areas:

Facilitating and improving access to finance for SMEs, in the form of loan guarantees and equity facility

Supporting internationalisation of SMEs and improving SMEs’ access to markets, through the development of support services such as the Enterprise Europe Network or the China, Latin America and South-East Asia IPR SME Helpdesks

Creating more favourable conditions for business creation and growth, for example through the reduction of the administrative and regulatory burden and the identification and exchange of best practices among national administrations to improve SME policy

Promoting entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial culture through the Entrepreneurship 2020 Action Plan (including for example the European Network of Mentors for Women Entrepreneurs, and Erasmus for Young Entrepreneurs)

There are several ways to get funding under the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME) programme

Contracts and grants – in the section “Contracts and grants” on COSME’s website, you can find all open calls for proposals, calls for tenders and calls for expressions of interest. The list is updated often, so it is advisable to check it regularly: https://ec.europa.eu/easme/en/cosme

Local financial intermediaries - COSME funds can also be obtained via local financial intermediaries for loan guarantee or venture capital. Find the one closest to you: http://www.access2finance.eu/

Please be aware that COSME does not support research and innovation activities. These are supported under the Horizon 2020 programme. You can read more about Horizon 2020 here:http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/ and in the Horizon 2020 section of our FAQ.

As the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (COSME) programme is not research-oriented, the IP-related provisions established in the COSME Model Grant Agreement are scarce and not detailed.

The general rule established in the COSME Model Grant Agreement in terms of ownership is that the results of the action are owned by the beneficiaries of the grant. Note, however, that specific calls can impose different ownership rules, for example that the ownership of the results of the action will be vested in the European Commission (EC) instead of the beneficiaries. For this reason, it is advisable to check all call documents carefully in order to see whether any specific ownership rules apply.

Furthermore the Intellectual Property Provisions set forth in Articles 19.1 and 19.2 of the Model Grant Agreement provide that the beneficiaries must give each other, and their affiliated entities, access rights to the pre-existing IP rights necessary for the implementation of the action and to the compliance with their obligations under the Grant Agreement.

The general Model Grant Agreement (MGA) in articles 25.4 and 31.4 foresees access rights only for affiliated entities established in a Member State or in an associated country. However, beneficiaries are free to agree on more favourable or broader access rights, e.g. access rights to affiliated other than those mentioned above, including non-European affiliated entities.

Access rights to background and results for the implementation of the project shall be given to other beneficiaries until the end of the project, even by the participants that leave the project before its completion.

On the other hand, requests for access rights to background and results from other beneficiaries for exploiting their own results shall be made up to one year after the end of the project.

Note that the actual duration of all access rights might be negotiated by the participants concerned and agreed differently (e.g. shorter, longer period - for instance, it might be extended until the expiration of a patent obtained on a project result).

According to article 2.1(2) and in conjunction with the article 8.2 of the Rules for Participation, an affiliated entity means any legal entity that is:

-under the direct or indirect control of a participant, or

-under the same direct or indirect control as the participant, or

-directly or indirectly controlling a participant.

Pursuant to this definition, a parent company should be considered as an affiliated company and thus enjoy access rights to project partners' background and results, but only if these rights are needed to exploit the results generated by its daughter company. It is to be noticed that this approach is significantly different from the one used in FP7 projects (Article II.1.2 of the model Grant Agreement for FP7), according to which a parent company was not considered as an affiliated entity.

Under the scope of H2020 Access Rights mean licenses and user rights to another participant’s results or background. They allow beneficiaries to benefit from each other’s resources, and consequently taking full advantage of the collaboration.

It should be taken into account that as established in the Model GA, access rights to another beneficiary’s results and/or background are only to be granted if the requesting beneficiary needs such access in order to carry out its part of the project or to exploit its own results. Moreover, it is to be noticed that, in order for the beneficiaries to exercise their access rights, this must be requested in writing.

Negotiating a potential project proposal will most probably involve exchanging important information, which can result in the disclosure of your ideas, know-how, plans or techniques. Ensuring that confidentiality obligations are duly put into place will allow you to safely disclose know-how and information which, although not protectable by IP rights, brings a commercial/economic/strategic value to your organisation. Furthermore, putting confidentiality obligations in place will allow you to disclose potentially patentable information to your partners without ruining the novelty requirement at the basis of a patent application.

For this reason, it is always very much advisable for potential project partners to agree on appropriate non-disclosure and confidentiality obligations before the negotiations start, by signing a non-disclosure agreement (NDA). An NDA will set out procedures for the definition and handling of all confidential information during the negotiations. It will also allow you and your partners to define the purpose for which such information is shared and can be used, and will allow you to strictly regulate and/or prevent any further disclosure or use.

You may alternatively include confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations in a broader document, such as a memorandum of understanding (MoU), which is a document defining the framework of negotiations between partners.

Yes. The European Commission treats all proposals received as confidential, as well as any related information, data and documents received from each applicant. The whole process of handling and evaluating proposals is carried out in compliance with strict confidentiality rules, and proposals are archived under secure conditions at all times.

Similarly, external experts involved in the review of project proposals are also bound by confidentiality obligations. Evaluators, observers and other experts have to sign a contract with the European Commission, including a code of conduct which sets forth very strict confidentiality obligations.

In case a new entity joins the partnership formed in relation to the project proposal, this entity cannot automatically become a party to the agreements already in place (NDA and/or MoU). Two options are possible to include this new partner as a party:

The first option is to amend the whole agreement, which will in principle require the signature of all parties.

An easier option could be the signature by the new partner and the coordinator of an accession form. The advantage of an accession form is that it does not require the signature of all partners all over again: the coordinator informs them all and signs the form if everyone agrees. This option is possible provided that the coordinator has a mandate to do so from the other partners.

We would however advise against the solution of concluding bilateral MoU/NDAs between the coordinator and each partner. Legally speaking indeed, there is a difference between having a global NDA/MoU between all partners (where each signatory is bound to respect the confidential information disclosed by everyone else, and protected against disclosures to anyone else), and having separate agreements only signed by the coordinator. While these seem easier to implement, they do not create the same contractual obligations amongst the parties. In that case, the various partners would be bound to confidentiality clauses only to the coordinator, not amongst themselves. They would not be directly liable to the other partners in case they breach their confidentiality obligations, and vice versa. This may make enforcement matters difficult; for this reason we would recommend sticking to a single agreement.

In accordance with the Article 24 (2) of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation (RfP) and the Article 41 (3) of the Grant Agreement for Horizon 2020 (GA), the participants have to conclude a consortium agreement (CA) if the work programme does not rule otherwise.

However, neither the RfP nor the GA stipulates that a CA has to be concluded before the GA is signed. The Annotated Model GA only strongly recommends ("should in principle") that the CA be negotiated and concluded before the action starts because not having a CA at this moment could delay and jeopardise the action.

The situation would change if the work programme exceptionally stipulates that a CA be concluded before the signature of the GA. Such additional participation conditions might be included in accordance with the Article 9(5) of the RfP. In such case, if the European Commission becomes aware of the absence of the conclusion of the CA it would not sign the grant agreement.

According to Article 41.3 of the Model Grant Agreement, a consortium agreement has to be signed between beneficiaries, unless the work programme specifies that there is no need for it. In other words, if not indicated otherwise, the beneficiaries must have internal arrangements regarding their operation and co-ordination to ensure that the action is implemented properly (consortium agreement).

The Grant Agreement is a contract set between the consortium (all its partners) and the European Commission, while the Consortium Agreement is an internal arrangement set between the partners of the consortium - it regulates all issues that are not covered by the Grant Agreement but are important for the internal functioning of the consortium (such as the organisation of work, structure, intellectual property management, liability, conflict resolution, future exploitation and dissemination of results, etc.).

In principle, the agreement may include any arrangements the partners wish to make, as long as they are not contrary to the Grant Agreement and the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation.

It is to be noted that there is no binding model of a Consortium Agreement. The European Commission has only made available a check list with non-binding guidelines on the issues that participants may consider while drafting their Consortium Agreements.

However, there are several models of Consortium Agreements that have been created by different entities and may be used by participants in H2020 projects. The DESCA model is suitable for all multi-beneficiary projects, the EUCAR model is mainly for automotive R&D projects,the MCARD model for ICT related projects and the LERU and BAK models for MSCA ITN projects.

The above models may help you personalise/complete your consortium agreement. Have, however, in mind that they show only examples of possible approaches and do not show all alternatives for a given situation – you may adjust them for the specific needs of your particular consortium to the extent that such modifications are not in conflict with the Grant Agreement or the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation.

A Consortium Agreement refers to the internal organisation of the consortium. Depending on the area or sector of the each project and of the grade of technical complexity that are involved, the Consortium Agreement might generally contain the following:

· provisions on the governance structure of the consortium;

· technical provisions (e.g. the tasks of each party and the project schedule);

· financial provisions (e.g. the distribution of the Community financial contribution, the financial plan, etc);

· provisions regarding IPR and related issues such as dissemination, use and accessibility of the results, confidentiality, as well as arrangements on the settlement of disputes and liability.

Costs related to the protection of the actions results (e.g. consulting fees, fees paid to the patent office for patent registration) and to royalties paid for IPR access rights are normally eligible, if all the eligibility conditions are met, in particular, if such costs incurred during the action;

· are necessary for the implementation of the action;

· are reasonable, justified and complying with the principle of sound financial management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency.

The European Union in Horizon 2020 projects may contribute to a maximum of 100% of the total costs of activities concerning protection, dissemination and management of IPR.

Costs related to protection of other intellectual property (e.g. background patents) are NOT eligible.

It is strongly recommended that if there is doubt about the eligibility, the beneficiaries should contact the Commission/Executive Agency.

The obligation to draft a preliminary plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results still exists and arises at the proposal stage in Horizon 2020.

Article 13 of the Rules for Participation requires a plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results, where provided for in the work programme or work plan. The Horizon 2020 Work programme 2014-2015 explicitly specifies the obligation to include a draft plan for the exploitation and dissemination of the results within the project proposal. However the specific call conditions could establish exceptions to this rule. For example a draft plan is not required for proposals at the first stage of two-stage procedures - e.g. the SME instrument.

In Horizon 2020, generally speaking, there is no obligation to carry out freedom to operate searches. However, performing this type of search is usually good practice, as it will enable you to identify infringement risks linked to the exploitation of the project results. Freedom to operate searches are a good way of ensuring that third parties’ rights will not get in the way of exploitation – this information can be crucial at the proposal stage. For instance, finding out that there is only a limited freedom to operate might result in the necessity to contact third parties and ask for a licence – depending on the terms associated with the grant of this licence, you may consider that the project is no longer worthwhile, or will cost substantially more than what was previously envisioned.

However, depending on the funding scheme chosen, specific requirements may apply. For instance, under the Horizon 2020 SME Instrument Phase 2 funding scheme, each beneficiary has the obligation to “ensure its possibility to commercially exploit the results (freedom to operate)”. This obligation is explicitly set forth under article 26.3 (“Rights of third parties”) of the model grant agreement for Phase 2 of the SME Instrument. As you can see, no obligation to carry out a search is explicitly mentioned, but doing so will in our opinion be necessary in many cases for the beneficiary to make sure that it complies with article 26.3.

The Horizon 2020 general model grant agreement does not contain any general rules with regard to the use of open source licensing in Horizon 2020. In general terms, licensing project results is allowed, provided that it does not get in the way of the grant of access rights. This means that the exclusive licensing of project results should be avoided if it prevents access rights from being granted over the same results.

However, specific rules might explicitly forbid the use of open source. For this reason, we would recommend checking the work programme applicable to the relevant call for proposals, in order to see whether this call bears any specific requirements or recommendations which could impact the possibility to use open source. Indeed, while certain types of projects might imply restrictions to the way the results can be used or disseminated (e.g. security-related projects), others can be more focused on dissemination and therefore the appropriateness of open source will of course depend on the type of project. The European Commission has in fact adopted a policy on Open Access to scientific publications, as well as a pilot on Open Access to research data, therefore showing a greater focus on “open” dissemination in Horizon 2020.

If the work programme remains silent on this matter, we would conclude that no particular restriction applies with regard to the adoption of an open source licence over the project results. Furthermore, using open source licensing might provide for better visibility, outreach and re-use of the results and could therefore be beneficial to the overall impact of the project on the scientific community.

Finally, since many open source licences are by nature not restrictive, licensing project results under such terms (i.e. letting the public use, copy, modify, publish, distribute the software) might have for some of the partners the same effect as that of a lack of IPR protection – it could for instance be considered as going against their own commercial interests. For this reason, it would be good practice to discuss the adoption of the open source licence internally amongst the consortium, so that all partners are given an opportunity to raise some concerns in relation to their legitimate interests.

In Horizon 2020, disseminating project results is a general obligation imposed upon project beneficiaries. However, no dissemination can take place until a decision has been made regarding the protection of project results. In other words, dissemination can only occur once the results have been protected, and insofar as it is compatible with this means of protection.

If trade secret protection is the chosen route of protection for one of your project results, dissemination of these results may not take place at all, since it would not be compatible with the protection chosen.

No. In Horizon 2020, Open Access can be defined as the online access to scientific publications, at no charge to the end-user. Open Access therefore only aims at making your work as widely accessible to the public as possible – it does not aim at putting your publications in the public domain, nor to allow the public to reproduce or redistribute a work without its owner’s consent.

In other words, Open Access is only a means of dissemination and does not have any effect upon the copyright in your publications. Provided that your publications are original, they will in any case be protected by copyright.

This does not necessarily mean that you will retain the copyright in your publications: indeed, in Horizon 2020, the rule is that project results (and related intellectual property rights) are owned by the beneficiary generating them. This means that in most cases the organisation or institution you work for will have the ownership of the results, including your publications – this will usually be reflected by a clause in your employment contract. You would in any case retain at least moral rights over your work, such as the right to be identified as its author.

In the EU, websites are works which are usually protected by copyright, provided that they are the result of the creativity of their author(s), that is, that they are original. Copyright protection arises automatically upon the creation of the work, and grants its owner several exclusive rights such as the rights to copy, to distribute, and to communicate the work to the public.

Please note that the individual works which constitute the website’s contents (such as articles, written reports, guides, videos) will also be individually subject to copyright protection, provided that they fulfil the requirement of originality. Databases included in a website can also be subject to copyright protection if they comply with this requirement of originality. Nevertheless, in the EU, a database which does not present an original character may still be protected, under a separate protection regime (a sui generis database right).

As long as your website meets the requirements for copyright protection (in particular a requirement of originality), copyright will arise automatically. Therefore, although it is good practice to include a copyright notice on your webpage, the existence of copyright will not depend on this notice. A copyright notice is, however, useful for the purpose of informing website users of the existence of rights over the content (and thus preventing unintentional infringements from occurring); in certain jurisdictions, it will also be useful in court as a means of proof in case of an infringement dispute.

Please note that an EU-funded project or a consortium does not have legal personality, and therefore cannot as such be legally considered a copyright holder. Therefore, it is advisable to mention the name of the project partner(s) which hold the copyright in the website, rather than the name of the project. However, if many project partners are involved and are all co-owners, an alternative could consist in mentioning “[name of project] partners” as the right holders, in the copyright notice.

Horizon 2020 has a number of new features that make it fit for purpose to promote growth and tackle societal challenges. These include:

Major simplification through a simpler programme architecture, a single set of rules, an easier-to-use cost reimbursement model, a single point of access for participants, less paperwork in preparing proposals, fewer controls and audits, with the overall aim to reduce the average time to grant;

An inclusive approach open to new participants, including those with ideas outside of the mainstream, ensuring that excellent researchers and innovators from across Europe and beyond can and do participate;

The integration of research and innovation by providing seamless and coherent funding from idea to market;

More support for innovation and activities close to the market, leading to a direct economic stimulus;

A strong focus on creating business opportunities out of the EU's response to the major concerns common to people in Europe and beyond, i.e. ‘societal challenges’;

More possibilities for new entrants and young, promising scientists to put forward their ideas and obtain funding.

The intellectual property rules for Horizon 2020 programme have been included in the Rules for Participation, as was the case in the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7)

The rules on intellectual property rights in Horizon 2020 are based on the FP7 rules, with some further improvements and clarifications. There are, however, a few differences, such as:

Open access to research publications has more emphasis than in FP7 as it is now a general requirement, the specificities of which will, however, be further defined in each grant agreement. In order to help potential participants, the European Commission has published a fact sheet dedicated to open access in Horizon 2020. This fact sheet can be downloaded here

In parallel, a pilot action in Horizon 2020 has been launched regarding Open Research Data aimed at improving and maximising access and re-use of research data generated by certain specific projects. For more information as to the core areas of Horizon 2020 participating in the Open Research Data Pilot as well as to the types of data which the pilot will be applied to, you can read the European Commission Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data in Horizon 2020 available here

The model grant agreement for Horizon 2020 now makes provision for access rights to project results for the European Union, and in the field of security research also for Member States. Such access rights are limited to certain uses and provided for specific purposes only.

Some definitions (e.g. definition of background or affiliated entities) have been slightly changed.

The H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement is a guide published by the European Commission with the aim to help users to understand and interpret the Grant Agreement clauses, including those related to intellectual property.

Additionally it provides useful examples and practices. This document is still being completed.

The general rules concerning intellectual property rights can be found in the Rules for Participation, which apply to all funding programmes carried out under Horizon 2020, as well as in the grant agreement signed between the beneficiaries and the European funding body. A company participating in Horizon 2020 and concluding an agreement with a funding organisation or the Commission, for example signing a grant agreement with the Commission, will have to comply with these rules.

The general IPR rules and requirements applying to Horizon 2020 participants are in many ways similar to those applying under FP7:

In terms of ownership of project results, the general principle is that such results are owned by the beneficiary which generates them.

In the case where results have been generated by two or several partners jointly, and if it is not possible to establish the joint contribution of each beneficiary or to separate the results for the purposes of applying for, obtaining or maintaining their protection, the model grant agreement establishes a default joint ownership regime.

Similarly to FP7, the model grant agreement for Horizon 2020 provides for a general obligation for beneficiaries to exploit and disseminate the project results that they own.

The new model grant agreement also provides the obligation for project partners to grant access rights to their background and foreground, for implementation and exploitation purposes.

Specific additional rules concerning intellectual property rights may also be laid down in the grant agreement and work programme applicable to particular projects, for example in areas related to security, infrastructures, European Research Council (ERC), training and mobility, coordination and support, SMEs and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT)

In Horizon 2020 no specific requirements to identify background within the project proposals exist.

The Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation and the General model GA oblige the parties “to identify in any manner and agree in writing” upon the background for the project. Although not mandatory, it is advised to agree on background before the Grant Agreement is signed, to ensure that beneficiaries have access rights to what is needed to implement the action or exploit the project results.

According to the needs of the project participants, the agreement on background may be a separate agreement (e.g. if it concerns only certain beneficiaries) or may be part of the Consortium Agreement (e.g. attachment 1 of the DESCA 2020 model CA).

In the context of Horizon 2020 the term beneficiary (i.e. a "participant") is used to describe a legal entity which has signed the Grant Agreement and therefore is bound by its terms and conditions with regards to the European Union (represented by the European Commission or another funding body). The beneficiary must carry out an action or a part of an action funded under Horizon 2020. Furthermore, the term beneficiary also refers to participants that do not receive EU funding but must carry out tasks under an action and comply with most of the obligations under the Grant Agreement. Beneficiaries not receiving EU funding are usually third country participants - that are neither from an EU Member State nor from an associated country.

On the contrary, other legal entities which participate in Horizon 2020 by carrying out some tasks in an action, but which do not sign the Grant Agreement (including entities linked to the beneficiaries) are considered as "third parties involved in an action" (Article 8 of the General Model GA - multi-beneficiary). They are not bound by the terms and conditions of the Grant Agreement and consequently, the European Union (represented by the Commission or another funding body) has no obligation vis-à-vis third parties. If necessary to implement the action, beneficiaries may use contracts and sub-contracting for the purchase of goods, works or services, in-kind contributions provided by third parties and also linked third parties carrying out tasks under an action.

The Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme is open to participation for applicants from the following countries:

The Member States of the European Union and the Overseas Countries and Territories, linked to the Member States

Non-EU Countries. They can be divided into two groups:

Non-EU Countries automatically eligible for funding:

Countries Associated to Horizon 2020: third countries which are parties to an international agreement with the European Union with regards to this specific framework programme;

Third countries: which do not belong to the associated countries but are automatically eligible for funding, except where explicitly excluded in the call for proposal text; an exhaustive list of these countries is published on the Horizon 2020 Participant Portal

Non-EU Countries not automatically eligible for funding - applicants from these countries are eligible for funding in cases where the call for proposal explicitly specifies this option, or funding for these applicants is provided in a bilateral scientific and technological agreement, or when the European Commission estimates that participation of such an entity is essential for carrying out an action under Horizon 2020

In principle any legal entity, regardless of its place of establishment, can participate in Horizon 2020. Depending on the procedure for participation, applicants from third countries are divided into two groups:

Automatically eligible for funding - the associated countries and the countries explicitly listed as being automatically eligible

Not automatically eligible for funding - though they may still be funded in exceptional cases.

The conditions of particular work programmes may restrict the participation in Horizon 2020, or parts thereof, of legal entities established in third countries where conditions for the participation of legal entities from Member States, or of their affiliated entities established in a third country, in the third country's research and innovation programmes are considered to be prejudicial to the European Union's interests (Article 7.2 of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation).

Furthermore, some calls for proposals could require participation of legal entities established in third countries in order to be eligible.

Yes. In fact, wherever their location (EU and countries associated to Horizon 2020, or third countries), beneficiaries which become involved in a Horizon 2020 project will have to sign the grant agreement with the European Commission. Consequently, these beneficiaries will have the rights and obligations set forth in the grant agreement, in particular with regard to background and project results.

Furthermore, neither the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation nor the model grant agreement make any distinction between project beneficiaries based on the country they are located in.

However, a distinction is sometimes made between beneficiaries which receive EU funding and beneficiaries which do not, regardless of their location. Indeed, a small number of obligations contained in the model grant agreement will not apply to beneficiaries which do not receive EU funding. For more information, please refer to the FAQ on this topic.

Several obligations of the model general grant agreement will not apply to beneficiaries which do not receive EU funding. Regarding intellectual property, this concerns in particular articles 26.4, 28.1, 28.2, 30.3 and 31.5, which will not apply to these beneficiaries.

These articles are specific ones which are mostly linked to the EU’s rights over the results – however, the general principles in terms of intellectual property will remain applicable to beneficiaries which do not receive EU funding.

Consequently, the following basic IP rules (as included in the model grant agreement) will apply without any distinction to all project partners, regardless of their benefiting from EU funding or not.

Article 26.1, according to which the results will be the property of the beneficiary which generates them;

Article 26.2, which foresees a default regime applicable to situations of joint ownership;

Article 29, which foresees the dissemination of results and open access to scientific publications and research data;

Article 31, according to which beneficiaries have to grant access rights to their results to other beneficiaries when they need such access rights to implement the project and/or to exploit their own results.

In MSCA, the general rule surrounding ownership is that project results are owned by the beneficiary generating them.

In other words, your institution (e.g. your university) will sign the Grant Agreement with the European Commission and will consequently be considered as a beneficiary, i.e. the owner of the project results which its staff generates during the action. The default rule is therefore that copyright over your publications will be vested in your institution. As a researcher, you do not benefit from any automatic ownership rights under the Grant Agreement.

This provision will have to be reflected in the contractual relationship between you and your institution. This means that your institution will most likely include a clause in your contract stating that all project results you develop as part of your Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant will belong to it. As a result, you would own neither your project results (publications) nor the intellectual property rights over them (copyright).

However, you would in any case retain your moral rights over the works you have authored – that is, rights which are vested in a work’s author and cannot be transferred. These include for instance the right to be identified as the work’s author, or the right to object to any derogatory treatment of your work.

In MSCA, the rules surrounding the ownership of project results are the same as those applicable in other Horizon 2020 actions: project results are owned by the beneficiary generating them.

This means that even the results generated by your fellow while on secondment would belong to your institution, in accordance with the default rules applicable in the Grant Agreement. In other words, your partner organisation will not automatically be entitled to any IPR over the results developed on secondment, since it is not a beneficiary in the project, but a mere third party which does not employ the researcher within the action but only provides additional training and hosts him during the secondment.

However, this default rule is not always compatible with a third party institution’s internal policy. It is indeed not uncommon for partner organisations to require that the ownership of the results developed on secondment be granted to them, because this is what their IP policy requires. For this reason, and to avoid any dead-end, your institution should adopt a flexible approach. Since your partner organisation might not be aware of your own obligations under the Grant Agreement, you should clarify this point beforehand and outline your rights and obligations in terms of ownership, access rights, protection, exploitation and dissemination. This will allow your partner to understand the framework in which you can negotiate, and the rules and limitations which you have to comply with on your side. Then, remember that the Grant Agreement allows you to license or to transfer project results to third parties, under certain conditions. This means that, providing that these conditions are met, you can agree to license or transfer to your partner institution the project results developed by your fellow while on secondment. The terms of such agreement will vary depending on both parties’ interests, but this will allow you to settle on a different ownership regime which will be beneficial to you and your partner alike.

Pursuant to the Grant Agreement, beneficiaries have to make sure that researchers enjoy, on a royalty-free basis, access rights to the background and results so that they are able to develop their work under the project. Such access rights are to be granted only if they are necessary for researchers to be carry out their research under the project.

In case there is a restriction that might affect the granting of those access rights, researchers must be informed as soon as possible.

The ‘consortium agreement’ is an agreement between members of the consortium, to set out their internal arrangements for implementing the grant. It is purely internal. Partner organisations are not signatories to the grant agreement and have neither rights nor obligations under it. They do not form part of the consortium, and hence, the do not sign consortium agreement.

Partner organisations will, of course, have an interest in some/all project results (e.g. those developed by researchers while on secondment at their premises). Those issues will be however dealt with in a separate arrangement - partnership agreement. Partners do not have a general interest in all results, nor should they be involved in consortium decisions regarding exploitation or dissemination strategies: they are, after all, only third parties to the project.

In terms of protection, indeed, Horizon 2020 poses a general obligation to protect the project results - please see article 42 of the Horizon 2020 Rules for Participation and article 27 of the Model Grant Agreement.

This obligation does not apply to all results - it will only apply insofar as the results that are capable of (or can be reasonably expected to be capable of) commercial or industrial application and their protection is ‘possible, reasonable and justified’. Therefore, in many cases there will be no obligation to protect and the dissemination activities will suffice. Hence, no protection is necessary if protection is impossible under Union or national law or not justified.

Moreover, Horizon 2020 rules leave it up to the project participants to set up their own protection strategies. The choice of the most suitable form of protection should be made on the basis of the specificities of the action and the type of result - for instance, you may resort to confidentiality measures instead of filing for a specific intellectual property title (patent, utility model, industrial design etc).

Project related publications and presentations may also constitute project results. If original, these works will be protected by copyright. Copyright arises automatically upon the creation of the work: you will not need to register it or pay any fees. This means that once an original work is created, the copyright holder can prevent others from, for instance, copying or distributing these works without its consent. Please note that copyright will not protect the information or ideas contained in your publication but only the way in which they are expressed.

The signing of a consortium agreement is compulsory under a few Marie Skłodowska-Curie calls only – when it is not, the Work Programme always explicitly states so. For instance, there are no consortium agreements in mono-beneficiary projects.

A first step would therefore be to check whether a consortium agreement is compulsory in your case, depending on the type of project that you will take part in.

If a consortium agreement is not compulsory, it is usually good practice to conclude one anyway if you are part of a multi-beneficiary MSCA. In particular, a consortium agreement will usually be useful in case of a multiplicity of partners from different backgrounds (industry, academia) and will help you to clarify management and intellectual property issues.

In terms of intellectual property, please note that the rules in MSCA bear many similarities to the rules applicable in “standard” Horizon 2020 research and innovation actions (which most models are based on).

So far, two model Consortium Agreement templates have been published for MSCA-ITN projects, on the basis of the DESCA model: the LERU model and the BAK model. You can find them in the "Useful Documents" section of our online library.

The OpenAIRE initiative (Open Access Infrastructure for Research in Europe) aims to support the implementation of the Open Access policies of the European Commission and the European Research Council. The OpenAIRE portal provides extensive information, statistics and explanations about open access in Europe and allows research participants to locate their open access directory, deposit their publications or data therein, and link research results to funding. OpenAIRE also provides an efficient search tool for publications, data, and projects as well as a very thorough support service (FAQs, glossary, tutorials, guides, useful links, and a helpdesk).
You can access the OpenAIRE website here: https://www.openaire.eu/

In Horizon 2020, the main rules applicable to the ownership of project results can be found in the model grant agreement. According to these rules, project results are owned by the beneficiary which generates them. Your organisation would therefore own the results which it has generated.

However, if two or more beneficiaries jointly generate results and it is not possible to establish the respective contribution of each beneficiary, or to separate the results for the purpose of applying for, obtaining or maintaining their protection, then the results will be held by these beneficiaries under a regime of joint ownership. In this case, the joint owners must agree in writing on the allocation and terms of exercise of their joint ownership, by way of a joint ownership agreement.

If joint owners have not yet concluded a joint ownership agreement, the default joint ownership regime set forth in the grant agreement will apply. According to this default regime, each joint owner may grant non-exclusive licences to third parties to exploit the jointly owned results, without any right to sub-license, as long as the joint owners are given at least 45 days advance notice and a fair and reasonable compensation.

Please note that joint ownership is not compulsory. Indeed, once joint results have been generated, the joint owners can agree in writing to apply another regime than joint ownership, such as for instance the transfer to a single owner and the grant of access rights (e.g. licences) to the others.

As a general rule under the Grant Agreement (Article 30.1 of the Model Grant Agreement), each beneficiary may transfer the ownership of its own results. When doing so, the transferor has in principle the obligation to give at least a 45-day prior notice to the other beneficiaries which still have, or may still request, access rights to these results. The advance notice must contain sufficient information in order for these beneficiaries to identify the transferee and assess whether their access rights might be affected by the transfer. Upon notification, any of these beneficiaries with access rights may object to the transfer, if it can show that its access rights would be adversely affected. In this case, no transfer may take place until the beneficiaries concerned reach an agreement.

This notification and objection procedure can however be overlooked in certain specific situations, amongst which:

- Mergers and acquisitions: if a transfer of ownership is not explicit but the result of a take-over or merger between two companies, confidentiality constraints under mergers and acquisitions rules will normally prevail. This means that the transfer will have to be kept confidential until the take-over or merger happens, and will be notified to the relevant beneficiaries only afterwards.

- Transfers to specifically identified third parties: by prior written agreement, the beneficiaries may waive their right to object to transfers of ownership to a specifically identified third party. In this case, there is no need to notify the other beneficiaries of the intended transfer, since they have already agreed not to object to it. This mechanism is very useful if one of the beneficiaries is part of a large group and already plans to transfer its results to its mother company or to one of its subsidiaries: it allows this beneficiary to do so without having to notify each transfer every time.

In Horizon 2020, the general principle is that each partner has the right to transfer its own project results to a third party, such as its mother company.

However, if the transferee is located in a third country, i.e. a non-EU country non-associated with Horizon 2020 (such as the US), transfers will be possible in theory, but may be made subject to certain conditions. This will depend on whether your own Grant Agreement contains an optional clause to this effect (article 30.3 of the Model Grant Agreement).

If this optional clause is included in your Grant Agreement, the transfer of project results to a third party located in the US – or in any other non-associated country – will be subject to a prior, formal notification to the European Commission. Following this notification, the Commission will have the right to object to the transfer, if it considers that it is not in line with EU competitiveness interests, not consistent with ethical principles, or not consistent with security considerations. If the Commission objects, no transfer can take place; if it allows the transfer provided that certain conditions are met, no transfer can take place until these conditions are fulfilled.

If the optional article 30.3 is not included in your GA, transfers to third parties will be allowed, regardless of their location.

In any case, if a transfer is possible or allowed, please note that the transferee (US company) will still have to comply with certain obligations, such as the obligations to exploit, disseminate, and grant access rights to the project results (please see article 30.1 of the Model Grant Agreement).

In Horizon 2020, third parties do not sign the grant agreement and consequently are not project beneficiaries – for this reason, they do not have any “automatic” rights to the results under the grant agreement, according to which results are owned by the beneficiary generating them.

Furthermore, when resorting to third parties to carry out tasks under the action, and in case these third parties are entitled to claim rights over the results, the beneficiary concerned should make sure that it complies with its own obligations under the grant agreement. This means getting all the necessary rights from these third parties beforehand. This can be done by way of a transfer (assignment agreement) from the subcontractor to the beneficiary. Alternatively, this can also be done by way of a licence granted to this beneficiary over the subcontracted work. A licence should, however, be broad enough to allow the beneficiary to grant access rights – this means that it should include a right to sublicense. Such arrangements (transfer or licence) have to be made upon the signature of the subcontracting agreement.

The grant agreement therefore allows some flexibility on this topic and the ownership of certain project results can be left to the subcontractor, as long as the beneficiary is granted all the rights necessary for the implementation of the project and the exploitation of the results, in line with the grant agreement.

Each beneficiary under a H2020 project has an obligation to examine the possibility of protecting its results and protect them adequately if such results can reasonably be expected to be commercially or industrially exploited. The form of protection, its duration and geographical coverage should depend on and be adequate for the particular results. Nonetheless, the reference to industrial or commercial applicability means that not all results have to be protected. For instance, for results that are not expected to be commercially or industrially exploited or whose protection is impossible under European Union or national law or not justified, there is no such obligation.

Furthermore, when deciding whether to protect results or not, the beneficiaries must also consider the other beneficiaries’ legitimate interests and conform to all the relevant legal provisions, including the provisions set out in the Consortium Agreement. Where a participant does not intend to protect a result, it is also best practice to consider offering to transfer it to other consortium partners or third parties established in a Member State or associated country, better positioned for the exploitation of the results and willing to seek their protection.

It is also to be noticed that if valuable results are left unprotected, the Commission may take over their ownership.

The owners of the results generated under an H2020 project can decide not to protect their results and transfer their ownership. The beneficiaries must, however, ensure that their obligations regarding such results apply to the new owner (e.g. protection, dissemination, exploitation, access rights).

Unless agreed otherwise, prior notice about the intention to transfer the results must be given to the other project beneficiaries together with sufficient information concerning the future owner.

Any other beneficiary may object to the transfer if it can show that it would adversely affect its access rights. In this case, the transfer may not take place, until the beneficiaries concerned reach an agreement.